MonroeTalks.com

Categories => Religion & Philosophy => Topic started by: MonroeMonkey on June 09, 2012, 04:18:14 PM

Title: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 09, 2012, 04:18:14 PM
More work to be done! Video added today.


Creationism Vs Evolution - Poll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6WzaR55rwo#ws)


Quote from Youtube:

Quote
A recent Gallup poll has some depressing facts about Americans and creationism, evolution, and divine intervention. Does the Bible trump science? Is God behind evolution? How many creationists are in America? Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks.


Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 10, 2012, 08:55:51 AM
Evolution is creationism.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 10, 2012, 03:52:38 PM
Evolution is creationism.

If you think so, then you fall into the range of Theistic Evolutionist, which 32% of Americans are. BUT I think creationism is higher than some may think. Because guided evolution without common ancestry is NOT theistic evolution. I think some who call themselves theistic evolutionists deny common ancestry.

But anyways, evolution is NOT creationism. To say that is to commit an equivocation fallacy on the definitions. Creationism by definition says everything was made in perfect forms 6,000 years ago. Evolution by definition says everything arose from common ancestry over billions of years.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Frenchfry on June 11, 2012, 12:07:12 AM
I'm a bit surprised that video hasn't been reported to the admin for that one cuss word near the end.

Maybe they only report me.

Just warn folks and it's usually fine.

I hope my post is enough to bring it into compliance and prevent the complaints.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 11, 2012, 12:13:48 AM
If you think so, then you fall into the range of Theistic Evolutionist, which 32% of Americans are. BUT I think creationism is higher than some may think. Because guided evolution without common ancestry is NOT theistic evolution. I think some who call themselves theistic evolutionists deny common ancestry.

But anyways, evolution is NOT creationism. To say that is to commit an equivocation fallacy on the definitions. Creationism by definition says everything was made in perfect forms 6,000 years ago. Evolution by definition says everything arose from common ancestry over billions of years.
I'll interpret the Bible for myself, ty.
Out of Africa theory has been disproved.
I think evolution or the ability of life to adapt is evidence of intelligent design.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 11, 2012, 03:00:53 AM
I'll interpret the Bible for myself, ty.

You do that.


Quote
Out of Africa theory has been disproved.


Provide a credible scientific source for that claim.


Quote
I think evolution or the ability of life to adapt is evidence of intelligent design.


Doesn't mean it's true. I've already shown an example of a simulation that mimics randomness and produces systems which appear to be thoughtfully driven.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 11, 2012, 07:34:06 AM
You do that.



Provide a credible scientific source for that claim.



Doesn't mean it's true. I've already shown an example of a simulation that mimics randomness and produces systems which appear to be thoughtfully driven.
How do *you know it is randomly mimicing? I am sure it has a purpose.

Xerx, the fossil record is my source.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on June 11, 2012, 09:52:22 AM
Where's your "credible evidence" for common ancestry?

This is why Hovind is right, and why Hovind pisses so many of you pseudo-intellectuals off - and - consequently why the IRS targeted him and shut him down and confiscated all of his property ... because there is NO PROOF for common ancestry, and, your God-less religion is tax supported in our schools - and it teaches God DIDN'T do it - which is an utter, unprovable, total impossibility to believe that over "long periods of time" something than has never, and cannot ever be OBSERVED, happened.

At least we ADMIT ours is a religious theory - you guys on the other hand keep throwing around the word "fact" when you have none; and when you are EXPOSED as not having facts, you have little temper tantrums and start using the force of government to shut people up - because in your little world - a Supreme Being with a list of moral dictates will simply NEVER be allowed to govern your attitudes, behavior, or conduct; let alone, be an ever present form that government ought to rule in FEAR of.

A radius and ulna in any other animal COULD BE "proof" of a common DESIGNER - it is NOT "case closed proof" of common ancestry, there are OTHER possibilities and other theories that have NOT been ruled out; therefore your evolution is still THEORY, not fact - a.k.a. religion that socialists/communists force down school-children's throats with tax dollars so that they become OBEDIENT to government because there is no God ... that is your sales pitch, your goal, and you cannot PROVE otherwise.

"If there is a God...", Hovind explains the four great questions to LIFE: 

Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? And where am I going when I die?   

...if the evolution theory is true, how would you answer the four great questions of life? he asks in his seminar(not a Federal crime)

Who am I, and what am I worth?

"Well, if evolution is true, you are nothing important.  You are just a piece of protoplasm that washed up on the beach; you are not worth a thing."

"Actually you are part of the problem. You see, because you are one of the polluters of the environment, and the more of you we can get rid of, the better."

"See, that's normal thinking if evolution is true."

Where did I come from?

"Well, if evolution is true, you came from a cosmic burp about 20 billion years ago."

Why am I here? What's the purpose of life?

"Well, if evolution is true, there is no purpose to life, so you might as well have fun. If it feels good, do it."

Where am I going when I die?

Well, if evolution is true, you are going to the grave and you are going to get recycled into a worm, or a plant.

But see, the Bible says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - and I would add - God instituted marriage, government, and the institution known as the New Testament church...

And if God CREATED; which MOST PEOPLE on the whole planet believe; "that puts a whole different set of answers to those questions."

Only COMMUNISTS and tyrant dictators HATE the idea of a Creator, you are in the minority Xerxes - you have ONLY the force of government, not science, to back up your RELIGION - you LOSE!(not to Hovind - in your ad hominem way; you lose to majority opinion)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Flanders on June 11, 2012, 10:04:03 AM
If you think so, then you fall into the range of Theistic Evolutionist, which 32% of Americans are. BUT I think creationism is higher than some may think. Because guided evolution without common ancestry is NOT theistic evolution. I think some who call themselves theistic evolutionists deny common ancestry.

But anyways, evolution is NOT creationism. To say that is to commit an equivocation fallacy on the definitions. Creationism by definition says everything was made in perfect forms 6,000 years ago. Evolution by definition says everything arose from common ancestry over billions of years.

So what category would I fall into if I accept evolution, but believe it was started by a higher entity?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on June 11, 2012, 10:39:51 AM
Less, the science is there and it's sound.  There has been an immense amount of evidence to support evolution.  Go here http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/ (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/) for all the proof.


Flanders, I'm kind of in the same boat as you.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on June 11, 2012, 12:38:18 PM
Where's your "credible evidence" for common ancestry?

This is why Hovind is right, and why Hovind pisses so many of you pseudo-intellectuals off - and - consequently why the IRS targeted him and shut him down and confiscated all of his property ... because there is NO PROOF for common ancestry, and, your God-less religion is tax supported in our schools - and it teaches God DIDN'T do it - which is an utter, unprovable, total impossibility to believe that over "long periods of time" something than has never, and cannot ever be OBSERVED, happened.

At least we ADMIT ours is a religious theory - you guys on the other hand keep throwing around the word "fact" when you have none; and when you are EXPOSED as not having facts, you have little temper tantrums and start using the force of government to shut people up - because in your little world - a Supreme Being with a list of moral dictates will simply NEVER be allowed to govern your attitudes, behavior, or conduct; let alone, be an ever present form that government ought to rule in FEAR of.

A radius and ulna in any other animal COULD BE "proof" of a common DESIGNER - it is NOT "case closed proof" of common ancestry, there are OTHER possibilities and other theories that have NOT been ruled out; therefore your evolution is still THEORY, not fact - a.k.a. religion that socialists/communists force down school-children's throats with tax dollars so that they become OBEDIENT to government because there is no God ... that is your sales pitch, your goal, and you cannot PROVE otherwise.

"If there is a God...", Hovind explains the four great questions to LIFE: 

Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? And where am I going when I die?   

...if the evolution theory is true, how would you answer the four great questions of life? he asks in his seminar(not a Federal crime)

Who am I, and what am I worth?

"Well, if evolution is true, you are nothing important.  You are just a piece of protoplasm that washed up on the beach; you are not worth a thing."

"Actually you are part of the problem. You see, because you are one of the polluters of the environment, and the more of you we can get rid of, the better."

"See, that's normal thinking if evolution is true."

Where did I come from?

"Well, if evolution is true, you came from a cosmic burp about 20 billion years ago."

Why am I here? What's the purpose of life?

"Well, if evolution is true, there is no purpose to life, so you might as well have fun. If it feels good, do it."

Where am I going when I die?

Well, if evolution is true, you are going to the grave and you are going to get recycled into a worm, or a plant.

But see, the Bible says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - and I would add - God instituted marriage, government, and the institution known as the New Testament church...

And if God CREATED; which MOST PEOPLE on the whole planet believe; "that puts a whole different set of answers to those questions."

Only COMMUNISTS and tyrant dictators HATE the idea of a Creator, you are in the minority Xerxes - you have ONLY the force of government, not science, to back up your RELIGION - you LOSE!(not to Hovind - in your ad hominem way; you lose to majority opinion)


Less I have to ask, have you read Hovind's doctoral dissertation?  If not you can read it here, http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation).  I downloaded it but since I'm at work, I haven't had a chance to read it.  I think I will read it when I get home since it started off so excellent.  Please note that Hovind has a ridiculous amount of fallacies in his paper and the his PhD wasn't issued by an accredited university. 
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 11, 2012, 05:10:53 PM
Where's your "credible evidence" for common ancestry?



Here ya go.


Atavisms:

An atavism is produced by a mutation in a fossil-gene, which reactivates a feature that was deactivated through past mutations.


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/vxV63.jpg)

Back legs on a dolphin, which have bone structures of mammalian legs. Produced by a fossil-gene.

Teeth in a modern chicken. Produced by a fossil-gene.

Common ancestry makes sense of this, creationism doesn't.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/QJjG.jpg)

Another atavism activated upon a mutation in a fossil-gene.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/YH59G.jpg)

Back legs on a snake. Again, another atavism produced by a mutation in a fossil-gene, which reactivates something that was deactivated through past mutations.


Vestiges:


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/4SMDq.gif)


Vestigial bones of past legs on a whale. Left overs like this are common ALL throughout nature. I could give many more examples.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/RIaDd.jpg)

Vestigial hind leg of a python.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/TQNI9.jpg)

Small useless wings. They are a vestige. Many insects have wings they cannot use. What makes sense of this, creationism or evolution?

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/Y8UVA.jpg)

Again, those nice flightless wings of the cormorant that I explained in a past post.


Fossils:


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/oOwXI.jpg)

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/l0d4C.jpg)

Feathered dinosaurs. Remember, you will NEVER find a modern turkey or chicken where you find these in the fossil record (Jurassic). Look at the anatomy of the modern turkey, below.

Notice the epidepixteryx and archaeopteryx have teeth, like most feathered dinosaurs from that time. Sometimes modern chickens are born with teeth. Why is that? They have a gene for teeth and a simple mutation can reactivate what natural selection switched off. It's a fossil-gene that can mutate and produce an *atavism*. This is another strong evidence of common ancestry.

Notice how most feathered dinosaurs have fingers and claws. Then look at the dissected wing of a modern turkey, they have a finger with a small claw! Why a claw and finger under the wing? The claw is a vestige. They are clearly transitions from earlier forms! Modern birds also have reptilian like scales on their legs, like that of dinosaurs, as feathers, scales, and hair are made from the same gene; and made of ceratin. Also, modern birds and feathered dinosaurs have pneumatic bones. Compare the feet of the two!

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/ax3po.gif)

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/wSlHQ.jpg)

Scientists predicted that if evolution is true you should find the water to land transition in the Devonian. What did they find? Exactly that! Tiktaalik above. A clear transition from water to land. You DO NOT find modern frogs, etc., in the Devonian.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/6rJvx.jpg)

Oldest fossil is on the right, next the middle, next is the most recent. Look at the gradual shift of the blowhole on whales and their ancestors. Clearly transitions. And the you DO NOT find the older ones alive anymore, nor do you find the modern whale fossilized with them in the record.


Geographical Distribution of Species & Genetic Drift:

Cormorant of Michigan:

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/10c2k.jpg)

Galapagos Flightless Cormorant:

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/8PeBj.jpg)


Remember these? Let me restate myself, being some missed it...

The Galapagos Islands, like many Islands, arose from volcanic activity. They date, roughly, five million years old, at the oldest. When volcanic magma cools it creates igneous rock. Within this igneous rock are crystals with radioactive isotopes of potassium-40, which decay at a constant rate into argon-40. When the rocks first cool there isn't any argon-40, only potassium-40; therefore, the rocks are zeroed in. When the rock cools, the timer starts!

When they look at the ratio of potassium-40 and argon-40, in relation to the constant decay rate, they can accurately tell you how old those igneous rocks are. Some creationists say water can affect this, but that's not true, as water would not wash the isotopes out of the inside of crystals.



The cormorants, as you see here in Michigan, fly to South America every year, and then return to North America. A few million years ago, a group of cormorants went off course and found themselves on the Galapagos Islands. It's always warm and there is plenty of food, so they remained on these Islands. They no longer needed to drive, as cormorants are divers, so they swam around the shore lines eating the many fish that swim the shores.

Being they no longer need to fly to survive, natural selection is weeding the wing out. The energy used to preserve the wing is going into their feet, etc., to make them better swimmers. And something interesting is the standard cormorants, being divers, dry their wings in the wind, as seen in the pictures, for it's hard to fly with heavy wings. The flightless cormorant can no longer fly, but they dry their wings in the wind, as if they can fly. It's a *Vestigial Behavior*. What makes sense of this? Evolution.

You find in a few million years, due to genetic drift and natural selection, the difference between the standard and flightless cormorant. If such changes happen within a few million years, what would happen of 50 million years of drifting, 100 million years? Also, if you factor in extinction and the wild branching within drifting, you see speciation through natural selection making perfect sense, and the mathematics work just fine.


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/gkrSt.png)

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/GCgXQ.jpg)

Lemurs. Only found on Madagascar. What makes more sense, that genetic drift (evolution) did this, or that 4,000 years ago, some god magically teleported the flightless cormorant across the ocean to this Island. He, also, teleported the lemurs to Madagascar to make it look like evolution by genetic drift is true; as he did with the marsupials of Australia?

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/JRN2t.jpg)

Difference between tortoises on the Galapagos, drifting apart from island to island.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/mV0d9.jpg)

Notice the geographical distribution of these. These little guys can breed with each other county to county, but the northern most one (oregonesis) cannot breed with the most southern one (klauberi). Again, county to county they can breed up the spectrum, but the most southern and northern cannot. This shows speciation over the spectrum.


Endogenous Retroviruses:


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/fVZ16.jpg)


ERV's invade the host cell and merge in the DNA of the host, thereby tricking the host into replicating the RNA information of the virus. These viruses leave a mark in the genome. We have, roughly, 22,000 genes. These can attack anywhere in the 22,000!

So, what if you compare the human and chimpanzee genome and find 1 identical placement side by side with the chimp's? Maybe it's a huge coincidence. But what about 2? That's like winning the lottery. But what about 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc., etc... It becomes IMPOSSIBLE without COMMON ANCESTRY.




I haven't even went into DNA yet, which is one of the strongest evidences. I haven't went into Lenski's work. Or the arguments from bad design, such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve. I could go on and on and on with evidences throughout nature.

As the biologist Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in all biology makes sense expect in the light of evolution." The world as we know it only makes sense in the light of evolution, NOT creationism. In relation to the real world the miracles of creationism just don't work.


But hey, some people still believe we walked with these 6,000 years ago. Lol...

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/pf8cX.jpg)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on June 11, 2012, 06:53:36 PM
Forsyth; I keep it simple - I don't "follow" Hovind per se, to the degree I investigate his every word ad naseum so I can find a flaw to discredit everything he ever said...that's what evolutionists waste their time doing.

His simple philosophical points and probing questions to Christians to TRUST the Genesis account(and the Psalms) that present the creationist/God's eyewitness side are more than enough - because- BOTH theories are religious...

See, I could dismiss every word/argument Xerxes has ever typed on this forum because he just published: "Vestigial bones of past legs on a whale." - now, not being any sort of student of biology myself(let alone inclined to waste hours on end to PROVE God made the whale, which I cannot do - I just BELIEVE He did); I have seen Hovind present the very realistic proposal that the whale still uses these claimed "vestigal structures" in whale reproduction today - so - the far-fetched idea that Xerxes (BELIEVES) these were once legs and whales used to walk upright on the Earth; and, eventually going even further back the whale used to be a pine cone or a banana is just stupid and even more unrealistic than the Bible's assertion that God made the fish on day 5 of His creation...

So again, I think the philosphical agenda of the evolutionists is a MAJOR problem - to use tax dollars to propagandize our American school-children with the idea that the beautiful, intricate, inter-dependent, symbiotic creation they see all about them EVERYDAY got here by random chance(as well as human eyesight) is pure EVIL.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 11, 2012, 07:06:55 PM
Natural things are made of the same stuff, just rearranged differently.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 11, 2012, 07:08:29 PM
I like my science like my law, simple. If I can't read it and understand it while I'm running, it is no use to me lol.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 11, 2012, 07:10:39 PM
I could dismiss every word/argument Xerxes has ever typed on this forum because he just published: "Vestigial bones of past legs on a whale." - now, not being any sort of student of biology myself (let alone inclined to waste hours on end to PROVE God made the whale, which I cannot do - I just BELIEVE He did); I have seen Hovind present the very realistic proposal that the whale still uses these claimed "vestigal structures" in whale reproduction today - so - the far-fetched idea that...


What a pathetic excuse to ignore all the evidence above. Because KENT HOVIND said something about this you dismiss all other evidences? Huh?

I've heard what Hovind says about the vestigial legs of whales, saying they are used in mating, but, IN FACT, they are NOT needed.

Less, let's look at what real *Biologists* have to say about it.

Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss.

Bejder L, Hall BK.

Source:

Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

We address the developmental and evolutionary mechanisms underlying fore- and hindlimb development and progressive hindlimb reduction and skeletal loss in whales and evaluate whether the genetic, developmental, and evolutionary mechanisms thought to be responsible for limb loss in snakes "explain" loss of the hindlimbs in whales. Limb loss and concurrent morphological and physiological changes associated with the transition from land to water are discussed within the context of the current whale phylogeny. Emphasis is placed on fore- and hindlimb development, how the forelimbs transformed into flippers, and how the hindlimbs regressed, leaving either no elements or vestigial skeletal elements. Hindlimbs likely began to regress only after the ancestors of whales entered the aquatic environment: Hindlimb function was co-opted by the undulatory vertical axial locomotion made possible by the newly evolved caudal flukes. Loss of the hindlimbs was associated with elongation of the body during the transition from land to water. Limblessness in most snakes is also associated with adoption of a new (burrowing) lifestyle and was driven by developmental changes associated with elongation of the body. Parallels between adaptation to burrowing or to the aquatic environment reflect structural and functional changes associated with the switch to axial locomotion. Because they are more fully studied and to determine whether hindlimb loss in lineages that are not closely related could result from similar genetically controlled developmental pathways, we discuss developmental (cellular and genetic) processes that may have driven limb loss in snakes and leg-less lizards and compare these processes to the loss of hindlimbs in whales. In neither group does ontogenetic or phylogenetic limb reduction result from failure to initiate limb development. In both groups limb loss results from arrested development at the limb bud stage, as a result of inability to maintain necessary inductive tissue interactions and enhanced cell death over that seen in limbed tetrapods. An evolutionary change in Hox gene expression--as occurs in snakes--or in Hox gene regulation--as occurs in some limbless mutants--is unlikely to have initiated loss of the hindlimbs in cetaceans. Selective pressures acting on a wide range of developmental processes and adult traits other than the limbs are likely to have driven the loss of hindlimbs in whales.

*End Quote.



Quote
Xerxes (BELIEVES) these were once legs and whales used to walk upright on the Earth; and, eventually going even further back the whale used to be a pine cone or a banana is just stupid and even more unrealistic than the Bible's assertion that God made the fish on day 5 of His creation...

WTF? Lmao. Who thinks whales walked upright? NO one believes that! They would have been quadrupeds that lived mostly in water, like Hippos. Whoever said they were bipeds?



Less, provide me some credible sources other than Kent Hovind, who believes dinosaurs LITERALLY breathed fire! I have evidence of his saying they did. Why? He said, "That's what the Bible says, in the book of Job.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 11, 2012, 07:30:56 PM
LessGov's favorite creation scientist.


Dinosaurs breathed fire!


Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs Breathed Fire! WTF!? LMAO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOzoMoH-7sM#)



Kent Hovind denies scientific realities, yet believes dinosaurs breathed fire only a few thousand years ago, after the fall of Adam. LMAO. This is the main spokesman for Creationism.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on June 11, 2012, 08:36:54 PM
Less, did you even bother to look at the website I posted about creationist claims?  It's a very good source that cites all of it's information.  Granted you may not believe it because the sources are from accredited institutions.

Xerxes, I'm not sure if you checked it out since you have so many great sources, but it's good if you want to kill some time.


FYI, I've started to read some of that dissertation, and it's amusing to say the least.  Dude breaks out a poem he wrote in the middle of it, and it was only reviewed by one person.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 11, 2012, 08:55:26 PM
LessGov's favorite creation scientist.


Dinosaurs breathed fire!


Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs Breathed Fire! WTF!? LMAO ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOzoMoH-7sM#[/url])



Kent Hovind denies scientific realities, yet believes dinosaurs breathed fire only a few thousand years ago, after the fall of Adam. LMAO. This is the main spokesman for Creationism.
You say he is. Fire-breathing dino sounds like a dragon.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on June 11, 2012, 09:02:30 PM
You say he is. Fire-breathing dino sounds like a dragon.
Aaannd... you believe in dragons?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 11, 2012, 09:10:26 PM
Xerxes, I'm not sure if you checked it out since you have so many great sources, but it's good if you want to kill some time.


Yes. Talk Origins has just about every counter to creationist arguments. And the rebuttals are by real scientists.

You can even e-mail the scientists; I've done it. I e-mailed one scientist (Thomas A. Baillieul) from talkorigins and he explained in simple terms why creationists have no argument when it comes to Robert Gentry's "Polonium Halos."

To put it simply, Gentry could not show these halos were created by polonium, and being they could have been, and more likely were, created by uranium, Gentry cannot be taken seriously in his claim. If you can't demonstrate such a claim you can't be taken seriously, when there's a much more reasonable alternative; uranium.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 11, 2012, 09:25:57 PM
How do you know it is randomly mimicing? I am sure it has a purpose.

Did you read my first post on "Universe Without Thoughtful Design?" I showed that Conway's simulation randomly selects laws, and from that random selection can arise systems so complex they appear to be driven by thoughtful intelligence and to have purpose.

Quote
Xerx, the fossil record is my source.

Your source for what? I know a bit about the fossil record, the process, and how likely it is something will be fossilized.




So what category would I fall into if I accept evolution, but believe it was started by a higher entity?

Flanders, depends. A Christian who accepts common ancestry as a reality, and believes God oversees it, would be a theistic evolutionist; but merely accepting adaptation is not considered theistic evolution. Some panentheists fall into this category.

A person who believes some god thoughtfully created the program and executed it, without further involvement, is a deist. They still fall within the theistic evolution category, but you could call it deistic evolution.

A person that believes the world was created 6,000 to 12,000 years ago, and all animals in perfect form from the dust of the earth, is a creationist.

An atheist, agnostic, or pantheist just accepts evolution as a reality.


Personally, I don't believe the universe was thoughtfully designed, nor do I believe evolution is thoughtfully driven. But, I do think the universe, and beyond, is like a vast organism that by its intrinsic nature grows into countless forms and then dissolves. It's not thoughtfully designed, but the very nature of the organism gives birth within itself to countless complex forms. If I call this vast Being "God" then all of us are the eyes, ears, and bodies of God.

What others call "intelligent design" I call the self-arranging quality of nature Itself, beyond thoughtful discrimination.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 11, 2012, 09:31:58 PM
Did you read my first post on "Universe Without Thoughtful Design?" I showed that Conway's simulation randomly selects laws, and from that random selection can arise systems so complex they appear to be driven by thoughtful intelligence and to have purpose.

Your source for what? I know a bit about the fossil record, the process, and how likely it is something will be fossilized.




Flanders, depends. A Christian who accepts common ancestry as a reality, and believes God oversees it, would be a theistic evolutionist; but merely accepting adaptation is not considered theistic evolution. Some panentheists fall into this category.

A person who believes some god thoughtfully created the program and executed it, without further involvement, is a deist. They still fall within the theistic evolution category, but you could call it deistic evolution.

A person that believes the world was created 6,000 to 12,000 years ago, and all animals in perfect form from the dust of the earth, is a creationist.

An atheist, agnostic, or pantheist just accepts evolution as a reality.


Personally, I don't believe the universe was thoughtfully designed, nor do I believe evolution is thoughtfully driven. But, I do think the universe, and beyond, is like a vast organism that by its intrinsic nature grows into countless forms and then dissolves. It's not thoughtfully designed, but the very nature of the organism gives birth within itself to countless complex forms. If I call this vast Being "God" then all of us are the eyes, ears, and bodies of God.

What others call "intelligent design" I call the self-arranging quality of nature Itself, beyond thoughtful discrimination.


If the random tweaks led to a complex thing, wouldn't that show they weren't so random after all?
Recent fossil finds, like the one in Asia, and what about Neanderthals?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on June 11, 2012, 09:49:26 PM
If the random tweaks led to a complex thing, wouldn't that show they weren't so random after all?
Recent fossil finds, like the one in Asia, and what about Neanderthals?
Believe it or not, Neanderthals are your ancestors! Haven't you been following the history of "man"?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 11, 2012, 09:55:20 PM
If the random tweaks led to a complex thing, wouldn't that show they weren't so random after all?

Recent fossil finds, like the one in Asia, and what about Neanderthals?

Huh? If you didn't read or understand my first post in "Universe Without Thoughtful Design," then re-read it.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on June 11, 2012, 10:01:18 PM
Huh? If you didn't read or understand my first post in "Universe Without Thoughtful Design," then re-read it.
Mind made up; you're wasting your time. Some people are immovable!
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on June 13, 2012, 02:16:37 AM
Sammy is right; some of us have made up our minds - God exists, and God did it.

I won't expend too much energy "proving" that, I think it is majority opinion the world over; I am only inclined to interrupt Xerxes constant blathering and cut-and-paste efforts to sustain his claim that God doesn't exist(and evolution proves it) because I  ... well ... just because I should as a Christian.

Hovind hasn't hurt anyone; as an American, founded on our original principles; he should have been free to have that ministry, allow it to flourish as much as the free market idea of the creation account draws interest, and do as he wants with the donations, totally unmolested by his government in a truly free society where the public can CHOOSE to support him(or ignore/bankrupt him) to any degree they like ... he has had over 90 debates, Xerxes, over 90 - the man was no coward, he was well studied and very persuasive in his assertion that evolution is a STUPID religion that is tax supported - that is NOT how human beings came into existence - and all your childish "WTF's" and "LMAO's" don't lend one ounce of credibility to your argument/persuasion that human beings would be better off denying that they are extremely unique individuals that were CREATED by God.

You are just one young, rebellious buck who has got a lot of fight in ya; and unfortunately you have decided to direct your energy broadcasting your position that "no invisible God is gonna tell me what I can or can't do" which has always been your free choice all along - no different than any person who violates societies laws/natural laws.

http://www.thirdwave-websites.com/blog/calvin-hobbes-categorical-imperative.jpg (http://www.thirdwave-websites.com/blog/calvin-hobbes-categorical-imperative.jpg)

sorry I don't know how to imbed the image
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 13, 2012, 02:41:19 AM
Mind made up; you're wasting your time. Some people are immovable!


Sigh... Seems so.

They never address the evidences with sound counter-arguments.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on June 13, 2012, 07:38:24 AM
Sammy is right; some of us have made up our minds - God exists, and God did it.

I won't expend too much energy "proving" that, I think it is majority opinion the world over; I am only inclined to interrupt Xerxes constant blathering and cut-and-paste efforts to sustain his claim that God doesn't exist(and evolution proves it) because I  ... well ... just because I should as a Christian.

Hovind hasn't hurt anyone; as an American, founded on our original principles; he should have been free to have that ministry, allow it to flourish as much as the free market idea of the creation account draws interest, and do as he wants with the donations, totally unmolested by his government in a truly free society where the public can CHOOSE to support him(or ignore/bankrupt him) to any degree they like ... he has had over 90 debates, Xerxes, over 90 - the man was no coward, he was well studied and very persuasive in his assertion that evolution is a STUPID religion that is tax supported - that is NOT how human beings came into existence - and all your childish "WTF's" and "LMAO's" don't lend one ounce of credibility to your argument/persuasion that human beings would be better off denying that they are extremely unique individuals that were CREATED by God.

You are just one young, rebellious buck who has got a lot of fight in ya; and unfortunately you have decided to direct your energy broadcasting your position that "no invisible God is gonna tell me what I can or can't do" which has always been your free choice all along - no different than any person who violates societies laws/natural laws.

[url]http://www.thirdwave-websites.com/blog/calvin-hobbes-categorical-imperative.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.thirdwave-websites.com/blog/calvin-hobbes-categorical-imperative.jpg[/url])

sorry I don't know how to imbed the image


Less evolution is not a religion here is why.

Quote
Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares: • Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
 • Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
 • Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
 • Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
 • Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
 • Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
 • Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
 

2. How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
 

3. Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
 

4. Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
 

5. Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.

 The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).


Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html)
 
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Flanders on June 13, 2012, 08:46:34 AM
Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator. According to deists, the creator never intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism)

Cool, that pretty much sums up my beliefs.  Thanks xerxes
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on June 13, 2012, 09:26:56 AM
Some of you guys seemingly know NOTHING about "religion" ... I think some of you just can't handle the concept of "submitting" to anything bigger than your childish made up worldview; and that is called IDOLATRY ...

You guys who deny Jesus Christ also have a "god", and, it is simply a "god" created by yourselves for yourselves; thereby, NOBODY can tell you that you are wrong about anything - let alone - instruct you properly that a great many things are simply out of your control.

This is why Xerxes used the "ism" after creation in the title, kind of a back-handed typical atheist insult - as Hovind and his audience say, we ADMIT creation is a RELIGION; but you guys strain at a gnat and swallow a camel with your "there is NO God!, there is NO God!, there is NO God!" temper tantrums.

You are the ones who cannot be helped...there will most likely NEVER be a day when America is so full blown secular/humanist/communist whereby we have NO churches or believers in Jesus Christ, or, a Creator...for you wannabe's to think you are smarter than every last church-attending working professional with any combination of BOTH religious and secular education/training/life experience BECAUSE you believe human life evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years shows your immaturity and psychological disconnection from reality - and - as we always contend, you do it for MORAL reasons such as you want to be gay, have sex with whatever or whomever whenever, do drugs, get drunk and be reckless, use government to silence people you disagree with who would DARE to impose any rules governing your conduct.

We are not the "thought police", you are.  The evidence is clear and overwhelming - creation happened by a force incomprehensible to finite/SINFUL man - so, it is in your best interest to SUBMIT to that authority rather than continue in your foolishness that leads only to mischief, chaos, misery for yourself and others who share this planet with you.

Xerxes cites/eludes to the plight of people who are duped by false preachers(false deities), as do I; people that preach falsely about Christianity, or, give people a religion with a made up evil god that says "you are better than your human equal" are simply pure evil - but the plight of people with NO BELIEF and no preacher is far worse, and that is undeniable today, and in world history.

No doubt, the world is plagued with Christian hypocrites; no doubt that biblical Christianity and the historical/spiritual account of Jesus Christ makes the most sense to all people when it is presented PROPERLY in a way that honors God - but - to fight it, based on the selfish whims of "I refuse to believe in a Creator who would tell me not to do immoral things to others, or with my body" is beyond irrational - you most likely submitted to your parents as a child, you have to submit to your employers and their rules, if you were in the military obedience to your superiors is mandatory - there is always a hierarchy, there is a human spirit that desires LIBERTY; but, God is a god of ORDER; and, there are moral absolutes out there, most people are aware of them in their conscience(like a child taking a cookie without asking, they KNOW it is wrong, they tend to look around for PERMISSION) - and ALL the evidence suggests that deviating from those causes suffering, period!

I don't do "organized religion" - I do Jesus Christ is God, the Creator, my deity if you want - and His word is contained(and His eyewitness creation account), has been preserved, in the 1611 Authorized Version of the King James Bible - and I am a better man for it!

As far as the question did we descend from apes(were Neanderthals apes? - I think Hovind recommends Marvin L. Lubenow's book, "Bones of Contention.) - here's a clip of Hovind having a very thoughtful debate with a theistic evolutionist - look at the point he makes with respect to the evolution of human speech(from, obviously, the grunts and groans of animals IF evolution is true)...[his answer begins at 2:10 mark] - Broca's Convolvulus - NOT evolved by random chance, sorry!

Creation Evolution Debate Dr Hovind vs Dr Callahan Part 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWUJ1BYfyc4#)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on June 13, 2012, 10:37:38 AM
Language could have very well came by a random mutation since it is beneficial to the species.  Obviously primates have grunts and hand gestures to indicate certain things.  Homo Erectus had a large enough brain to actually begin to form the basis for language first using these grunts and hand singals, then associating certain sounds with certain objects and actions.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 13, 2012, 04:03:56 PM
Good discussion going.
God is love. Love is another thing that can't be scientifically defined. Love shows God is real.
Love doesn't always feel good. Sometimes it hurts. Life is not random. Everything has a purpose and exists for a reason. I wish I could "prove" God to those who doubt. Just looking at creation proves it to me. I feel God's love and I know he there for me. He answers my prayers. I pray for his will to be done. I may not always comprehend it, but I have faith in him. Life requires faith. People put faith in material things and other people every day. People have faith in science, because that's where the facts point. Problem is, we only know a tiny fraction of all of the "facts" out there, so science is evolving as the evidence is uncovered and the evidence is put into perspective. This is where atheism starts seeming like a religion to me.

I love animals. (but I have no desire to be hurt or killed by one!) You can communicate with them, but they don't "speak" human. The neatest form of communication and expression to me is singing. The part of the brain responsible for singing is different and in another hemisphere than for language.
Words can be deceiving. Anyway, make a joyful noise! :)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 13, 2012, 04:05:58 PM
Less regurgitates the same logical absurdities over and over. We love our sin, so we deny the war criminal of the Bible. We love our sin, so we deny absurd laws with no reason to back them. Sigh...



Less, Forsythia answered your question on language. Like all things, language evolves over a long period of time. You don't expect to find major leaps from merely grunting to speaking old English. Races and comparative languages show they are connected and have drifted apart, according to genetic drift and migration.

Can you explain to me what genetic drift is? Here, I'll tell you in a nutshell. When one population divides into two and they become isolated from one another, they begin to accumulate mutations that are unique to their community. These two groups, that used to be one, no longer share these mutations with one another, because they no longer breed together. They accumulate in differences and drift apart.



Less, answer this for me. I've never had a creationist answer this simple question. Go to Lake Erie. You'll find large rocks and smaller rocks full of fossils. If you get lucky you'll find some brachiopods and trilobites. Look carefully at all these strange species in the rocks. Then look at the dead species of today in the sands. You'll see shells of today, dead fish, maybe a dead bird. Then notice ALL the species that are fossilized in the rocks are EXTINCT. Realize that you will NEVER find the ones in the rocks alive today, and you will NEVER find the ones alive today in the rocks with these Devonian species.

Now, if all species were created in perfect form in six days, then they all lived together, and at the fall of Adam they began to die together; therefore, we ought to find them fossilized TOGETHER. But, you do NOT find modern turtles in the Devonian. You don't find wolves in the Permian. You don't find modern turkeys in the Jurassic. And floods don't sort out species.

So, make sense of this in the light of creationism. My question is: How do you make sense of this reality in the light of creationism?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 13, 2012, 04:10:21 PM
Less regurgitates the same logical absurdities over and over. We love our sin, so we deny the war criminal of the Bible. We love our sin, so we deny absurd laws with no reason to back them. Sigh...



Less, Forsythia answered your question on language. Like all things, language evolves over a long period of time. You don't expect to find major leaps from merely grunting to speaking old English. Races and comparative languages show they are connected and have drifted apart, according to genetic drift and migration.

Can you explain to me what genetic drift is? Here, I'll tell you in a nutshell. When one population divides into two and they become isolated from one another, they begin to accumulate mutations that are unique to their community. These two groups, that used to be one, no longer share these mutations with one another, because they no longer breed together. They accumulate in differences and drift apart.



Less, answer this for me. I've never had a creationist answer this simple question. Go to Lake Erie. You'll find large rocks and smaller rocks full of fossils. If you get lucky you'll find some brachiopods and trilobites. Look carefully at all these strange species in the rocks. Then look at the dead species of today in the sands. You'll see shells of today, dead fish, maybe a dead bird. Then notice ALL the species that are fossilized in the rocks are EXTINCT. Realize that you will NEVER find the ones in the rocks alive today, and you will NEVER find the ones alive today in the rocks with these Devonian species.

Now, if all species were created in perfect form in six days, then they all lived together, and at the fall of Adam they began to die together; therefore, we ought to find them fossilized TOGETHER. But, you do NOT find modern turtles in the Devonian. You don't find wolves in the Permian. You don't find modern turkeys in the Jurassic. And floods don't sort out species.

So, make sense of this in the light of creationism. My question is: How do you make sense of this reality in the light of creationism?
Creatures adapt or die. The world is a big place, creatures move around, people migrate. What's the big deal?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 13, 2012, 04:13:45 PM

God is love. Love is another thing that can't be scientifically defined. Love shows God is real.


If love shows God is real, then does hate show God is not real?


Every moment there is an animal shrieking as another animal bites into its flesh to kill it. You have a human child dying every few seconds from hunger, and they die the most pitiful deaths, eaten up by parasites in extreme pain. You have hundreds gasping for breath from lung cancer, right now. You have dragonflies that shovel out their rival's semen. You have gorillas that bash in the heads of their rival's infants. You have gypsy wasps that paralyze their victim so their offspring can slowly eat it from the inside out, while it's still alive. You have ants taking slaves, etc., etc., etc...


Does all this prove God doesn't exist, being love proves God does exist? It's a non-sequitur.


Quote
Creatures adapt or die. The world is a big place, creatures move around, people migrate. What's the big deal?

Huh?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 13, 2012, 05:30:37 PM

If love shows God is real, then does hate show God is not real?


Every moment there is an animal shrieking as another animal bites into its flesh to kill it. You have a human child dying every few seconds from hunger, and they die the most pitiful deaths, eaten up by parasites in extreme pain. You have hundreds gasping for breath from lung cancer, right now. You have dragonflies that shovel out their rival's semen. You have gorillas that bash in the heads of their rival's infants. You have gypsy wasps that paralyze their victim so their offspring can slowly eat it from the inside out, while it's still alive. You have ants taking slaves, etc., etc., etc...


Does all this prove God doesn't exist, being love proves God does exist? It's a non-sequitur.


Huh?
If you haven't loved, how can you hate?
How can someone endure pain and suffering without love?
If man would love more and hate less the world would be a better place for us all!
I have a hard time getting into the brain of an insect. The natural world is what it is. Humans are gifted with empathy and compassion.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on June 13, 2012, 05:47:06 PM
Oh i forgot to add that certain primates have been taught sign language, so they show the ability to learn language.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Monique on June 13, 2012, 06:03:19 PM
Language could have very well came by a random mutation since it is beneficial to the species.  Obviously primates have grunts and hand gestures to indicate certain things.  Homo Erectus had a large enough brain to actually begin to form the basis for language first using these grunts and hand singals, then associating certain sounds with certain objects and actions.
Language most likely originated as a means for effective group hunting in order to formulate strategies. Not random, but an effective and efficient tool for acquiring food.

African Grey parrots can use language, too.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 13, 2012, 06:07:13 PM
Oh i forgot to add that certain primates have been taught sign language, so they show the ability to learn language.
Some animals are amazing! I wonder what they say about humans. Probably we are destroying the Earth.

Language most likely originated as a means for effective group hunting in order to formulate strategies. Not random, but an effective and efficient tool for acquiring food.

African Grey parrots can use language, too.
spoken word alerts game.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 13, 2012, 06:11:51 PM
Popular phrases of the day "run like hell" and "run faster!"
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 13, 2012, 06:13:32 PM

If love shows God is real, then does hate show God is not real?


Every moment there is an animal shrieking as another animal bites into its flesh to kill it. You have a human child dying every few seconds from hunger, and they die the most pitiful deaths, eaten up by parasites in extreme pain. You have hundreds gasping for breath from lung cancer, right now. You have dragonflies that shovel out their rival's semen. You have gorillas that bash in the heads of their rival's infants. You have gypsy wasps that paralyze their victim so their offspring can slowly eat it from the inside out, while it's still alive. You have ants taking slaves, etc., etc., etc...


Does all this prove God doesn't exist, being love proves God does exist? It's a non-sequitur.


Huh?
Do you realize how much fossils are out there and what has been ate by the Earth??
Huh?
If a species doesn't adapt, it dies!!!
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 13, 2012, 06:53:11 PM
Do you realize how much fossils are out there and what has been ate by the Earth?

Huh? Lol... Trust me, I know quite a bit about fossilization.

Quote
If a species doesn't adapt, it dies!!!

Yup.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 17, 2012, 08:28:03 AM
The theory of evolution is evolving:

http://www.themarysue.com/primate-fossils-myanmar/ (http://www.themarysue.com/primate-fossils-myanmar/)

How many "prehuman" species can one have existing at the same time?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 17, 2012, 03:32:37 PM
The theory of evolution is evolving:

[url]http://www.themarysue.com/primate-fossils-myanmar/[/url] ([url]http://www.themarysue.com/primate-fossils-myanmar/[/url])

How many "prehuman" species can one have existing at the same time?



A LOT. You expect to find all sorts of variations, due to genetic drift. Why do you think we have so many races of humans? And on an evolutionary time scale that didn't take long.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on June 19, 2012, 09:47:42 AM

A LOT. You expect to find all sorts of variations, due to genetic drift. Why do you think we have so many races of humans? And on an evolutionary time scale that didn't take long.
But humans are of the same species, although we do exhibit the most variation of any kind within a species. Every human is unIQue! That is not a product of thoughtlessness! Science says mitrochondrial dna links us all to one common female ancestor, named "Eve". That goes more toward proving Creation than evolution to me.
How do Neanderthals fit into all this?
As far as dating, crystals could be the product of recycling, and here is new information on the rate of particle decay, which also could affect dating...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47866307/ns/technology_and_science-science/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47866307/ns/technology_and_science-science/)

Misbehaving particles poke holes in reigning physics theory

Scientists find decay happens more often than Standard Model predicts — so now what?

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, it doesn't prove there is no God, or that he didn't create the world.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 19, 2012, 03:54:54 PM
But humans are of the same species, although we do exhibit the most variation of any kind within a species. Every human is unIQue! That is not a product of thoughtlessness! Science says mitrochondrial dna links us all to one common female ancestor, named "Eve". That goes more toward proving Creation than evolution to me. How do Neanderthals fit into all this?


Science gave that female that name, has nothing to do with proving the Bible correct. This happens in many species, as you get one that gains a mutation that reshapes the direction a species is going.

Neanderthals were primates that were part of a complex branching out of primates. We share a common ancestor with them. You expect their to be all sorts of subhuman species and primates if evolution is true; it's the branching of genetic drift. Again, that's why, in a relatively short time, you have all the various skin colors of humans. When groups divide and separate they *drift* apart. The longer they stay apart the more they drift apart, but if the numbers of any population get too high, while surviving well, you get gene flow, which slows down and weeds out change.

Mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow are the four principles of evolution. Understand them and the picture is made clear.


Quote
As far as dating, crystals could be the product of recycling, and here is new information on the rate of particle decay, which also could affect dating...

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47866307/ns/technology_and_science-science/[/url] ([url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47866307/ns/technology_and_science-science/[/url])

Misbehaving particles poke holes in reigning physics theory

Scientists find decay happens more often than Standard Model predicts — so now what?

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, it doesn't prove there is no God, or that he didn't create the world.


This only introduces variables not known of in the past, but it in no way creates a controversy among the academy of sciences; the world is still ancient and billions of years old. They'll just factor in the variables to get a somewhat more accurate date, but it will still be in in the same range of the spectrum. Creationists hear about these things and exaggerate them, as if it adds to the creationist argument, but it doesn't.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: livewire on June 19, 2012, 07:51:16 PM
So, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?   :o
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 19, 2012, 07:59:06 PM
So, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?   :o


I assume you're joking. But a lot of people ask this as a serious question.

We didn't descend from modern apes. We share a common ancestor with modern apes, that common ancestor we both descended from, on the tree of life, is now extinct as it was, but it lives on in the modern various forms.

Genetic drift is like this:

100 apes in a community.

The community splits into 30/70.

30 go west. 70 go east.

The two communities, that used to be one, no longer breed together or sharing germ cell mutations, so each group drifts apart.

Each group accumulates mutations unique to their group, and pass them on only to the ones they mate with in their group. Thus we have races of skin color among humans, etc..

Evolution is small accumulating changes over a long period of time, factoring in genetic drift, creating a great deal of variation among species; and given enough time you get speciation.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on June 19, 2012, 08:22:34 PM

I assume you're joking. But a lot of people ask this as a serious question.

We didn't descend from modern apes. We share a common ancestor with modern apes, that common ancestor we both descended from, on the tree of life, is now extinct as it was, but it lives on in the modern various forms.

Genetic drift is like this:

100 apes in a community.

The community splits into 30/70.

30 go west. 70 go east.

The two communities, that used to be one, no longer breed together or sharing germ cell mutations, so each group drifts apart.

Each group accumulates mutations unique to their group, and pass them on only to the ones they mate with in their group. Thus we have races of skin color among humans, etc..

Evolution is small accumulating changes over a long period of time, factoring in genetic drift, creating a great deal of variation among species; and given enough time you get speciation.


Assuming I "know" Live a little bit, I would think he is not joking. Your  thinking that he is joking is a continuation of your incessant "I'm smarter than you are, therefore, what you think is poo-poo" demeanor. You may be booksmart, but you ain't as smart as you think you are. Sorry for trolling.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 19, 2012, 08:26:19 PM
You may be booksmart, but you ain't as smart as you think you are. Sorry for trolling.

So you say. Provide a model to prove that, or I'll continue to laugh at how stupid your logic is.  :D
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on June 19, 2012, 08:46:14 PM
So you say. Provide a model to prove that, or I'll continue to laugh at how stupid your logic is.  :D
"provide a model". Is that philosophy-speak? I have NEVER purported to speak from logic. Laugh on!
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 19, 2012, 08:51:53 PM
If you don't know a model is, look up the word.

Sammy, it's nice you wanna have a pissing contest with me, but I don't think you're fit for this arena. Pop shots and ad hominems add nothing.



I'll admit, it's all a display of ego, these debates. And I admit, my ego is well-hung.

"Only ego complains about the ego," said Ego.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on June 19, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
If you don't know a model is, look up the word.

Sammy, it's nice you wanna have a pissing contest with me, but I don't think you're fit for this arena. Pop shots and ad hominems add nothing.



I'll admit, it's all a display of ego, these debates. And I admit, my ego is well-hung.

"Only ego complains about the ego," said Ego.
I almost peed myself  right here. "Pissing contest", doncha know. Your ego goes WAY beyond "well-hung".
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 19, 2012, 09:28:57 PM
I almost peed myself  right here. "Pissing contest", doncha know. Your ego goes WAY beyond "well-hung".

No wonder you always wanna play with it! LMAO.

Ah, that was funny...
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 19, 2012, 09:45:30 PM
Anyways, I'll bring this back on topic.


The Laryngeal Nerve - An argument against intelligent design.


The laryngeal nerve is a nerve from the brain to the vocal cords. It only needs to travel a few inches from the brain to the vocal cords, but it takes a strange detour under a valve of the heart, then back up to the vocal cords. You see this in all mammals, even the giraffe! This detour of twelve feet isn't needed! You expect to see such odd features, if modifications are being made on preexisting models (evolution), but not if things were created in perfect form, as creationists insist. Why travel feet when you only need to travel inches?

Again, evolution makes sense of this reality, whereas creationism does not.


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/19/wybzM.png)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on June 19, 2012, 09:51:44 PM
Wow, Just WOW! I've always wondered about the laryngeal nerve. As a matter of fact, I had a hard time sleeping last night, wondering about that very thing. If you were to take a poll, I bet a lot of others had the same problem.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: livewire on June 20, 2012, 12:43:17 PM

I assume you're joking. But a lot of people ask this as a serious question.

We didn't descend from modern apes. We share a common ancestor with modern apes, that common ancestor we both descended from, on the tree of life, is now extinct as it was, but it lives on in the modern various forms.

Genetic drift is like this:

100 apes in a community.

The community splits into 30/70.

30 go west. 70 go east.

The two communities, that used to be one, no longer breed together or sharing germ cell mutations, so each group drifts apart.

Each group accumulates mutations unique to their group, and pass them on only to the ones they mate with in their group. Thus we have races of skin color among humans, etc..

Evolution is small accumulating changes over a long period of time, factoring in genetic drift, creating a great deal of variation among species; and given enough time you get speciation.



To set the record straight, no, I was not joking.  I have asked the same question before, and gotten similar answers from evolutionists.  No surprise here.

The fact of the matter is this: 
There is NO concrete proof that humans are a product of evolution.
Similarly, there is NO concrete proof that humans were created by God.

I choose to believe in creation.  That is my belief, and I have that right. 
That belief will never be swayed by one person's opinions.

Humans have been given the free will to think, and reason. 
This, of course, is what separates us from animals.


Xerxes, at what point in time did humans suddenly begin to reason?

What did we evolve from, if not from apes? 

Why did "modern apes" NOT evolve as we did?  They are found in the same geographical locations as modern man, and as far as history is concerned, were exposed to similar environments as man.  Genetic drift cannot be THAT large, even over millions of years, without other factors entering into the equation.  IF SO, logic dictates that various species, with evolved abilities and knowledge somewhere between ape and man, would exist today.  That is not the case.  That alone is enough to totally debunk the theory of evolution.

'nuff said.   8)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: livewire on June 20, 2012, 12:54:01 PM
By the process of elimination, evolution is indeed impossible.


"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

~ Captain Spock, in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on June 20, 2012, 02:01:16 PM
Here's your answer Live

Quote
Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).


Here's more on genetic drift.  I'm at work or I would quote specifics directly.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: livewire on June 20, 2012, 03:53:38 PM
Here's your answer Live

Quote

    Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).


Here's more on genetic drift.  I'm at work or I would quote specifics directly.

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html[/url] ([url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html[/url])


Huh? ? ?   :o

"Humans and other apes"?? 

We are NOT apes.

Last time I checked, Americans, Australians and Europeans are all part of the human race.  We are all the same species.  Americans didn't evolve into another species when we left Europe, and we never will.

Unlike apes, which is another species, all Americans, Australians and Europeans can reason.

Well, with the exception of some Europeans these days.... they're a lot like Democrats, ya know.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Monique on June 20, 2012, 03:57:40 PM
It's not only humans that reason. Many higher mammals (and even a bird or two) are proven to do so. Perhaps not as well as modern humans, but even a dog has been shown to understand the process of elimination (see Nova Science Now). Several animal species have learned to use human language or ASL to communicate with us. Dolphins and elephants are fairly brilliant and can certainly reason their way through puzzles, exhibit excellent memory capacity, and appear to grieve when they lose a companion. Many types of animals reason; that cannot be used as a factor, IMO.

As I mentioned in another post, early humans very likely learned to speak in order to better form group hunting strategies. Just as other animals formed their own particular specialization for acquiring food and maintaining survival over millennia, humans specialized in precise vocalization and communication. We are just one of many specialized creatures that exist or have existed on this planet.

Finally, there are untold numbers of creatures that did exist but no longer exist, that are related to modern creatures. Again, the extinction of an ancestor cannot be used to conclude that humans did NOT descend from it, nor that multiple species MUST have sprung from it.

Aughhh.... This conversation has no end, but I'm compelled to submit my two cents.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on June 20, 2012, 06:36:39 PM
Livewire, ah, ok. I thought you were joking.


What gets most people is they haven't researched fossilization and genetic drift, etc. Over 99% of animals that die do not fossilize.

This is a good analogy at what the fossil record is like. Say a baby is born, and the parents take a picture of the baby everyday of its life until it's 60. If you compare pictures day to day, you don't see much difference. But if you compare a picture from 5 years old, and one from 30 years old, you can see how this being changed over time.

Now! Take all the pictures, bundle them together and throw them in a fire. Let them burn for a good 30 seconds, then put the fire out. Sort through the picture fragments. Out of the 20,000, or so, pictures you'll find a quarter of a picture of when the person was 5. A half of a picture of when they were 27. A whole picture of when they were 11. A 10th of when they were 43, etc., etc.

That's what the fossil record is like. There were BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of past forms, but very very  few fossilized. So, we have a fragmented history to sort through. There were plenty of humanoid like species, like Neanderthals, that died out. We happen to be the one, in the group of the family, that made it successfully.

And something to remember, is when they find past humanoid fossils the brain stem holes are in different places, showing a slow evolution, etc. You never find modern human structures among those ancestors of ours, they have different anatomies to a degree. Also, you never find modern turkeys and chickens with feathered dinosaurs. You never find humans fossils or dogs in the Permian, etc.

Once one has a firm understanding of natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, etc., it all comes together in perfect sense. And I already pointed out the evidence of ERV's in our genome compared to Chimpanzees, which only makes sense in light of common ancestry. I can provide myriad evidences in our DNA for common ancestry, if you like.


*Edited to add:

If one looks in the mirror then looks at their child, that's the rate in which evolution takes place. No child is ever exact to its parents, due to mutations in germ cells. These small accumulating changes over millions of years drive a species to slowly appear different over time. DNA stores changes; therefore, most changes are permanent, and things must be driven to ever change.


Title: Creationism Vs. Evolution
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 25, 2012, 10:37:35 AM
This is a rebuttal of LessGov's claim that "Whales have been found fossilized in polystrate position."


On talk origins this is known as "A Whale of a Tale!" lol...

The original claim was that in 1976 a fossil of a whale was discovered in California that was in polystrate position.

Here's the rebuttal:

Quote
Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.

The strata containing the whale consists of diatomites that accumulated within deep bays and basins that lay along the Pacific coastline during Miocene times. As a result of folding and tectonics associated with the formation of the Transverse Ranges, the strata containing the enclosed skeleton has been tilted into a less-than vertical position. These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Within the adjacent strata, several hardgrounds occurs. A hardground is a distinctive cemented layer of sedimentary rock that forms when the lack of sediments being deposited over a very long period of time on the sea bottom allows the surface sediments to become cemented (Isaac 1981, Garrison and Foellmi 1988). In fact, identical sediments are currently accumulating without the involvement of a Noachian-like flood within parts of the Gulf of California (Curray et al. 1992; Schrader et al. 1982).

Furthermore, a partially buried, articulated whale skeleton slowly being covered by sedimentation in the deep ocean off the coast of California was observed by oceanographers diving in submersibles. It is an excellent modern analogue of how this particular whale fossil was created without the need of a Noachian Flood (Allison et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1989).

The geology of these quarries is documented by publications of the California Division of Mines and Geology (Dibblee 1950, 1982) United States Geological Survey geological maps (Dibblee, 1988a, 1988b), graduate students at University of California, Los Angeles (Grivetti 1982), and field trip guidebooks (Isaacs 1981). The other whale skeletons which have been found in these quarries lie parallel to the bedding and owe their modern attitude to tectonics rather then some mythical catastrophe. The written documentation for the attitude of the whale skeletons is contained within field notes and locality records of the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.

For further reading check this out on talkorigins, which provides around 25 sources.




As if typical, creationists take one faulty case and try to use it to disprove evolution, which has thousands of evidences to back it. They create these so-called problems and exploit the hell out of it, but when researched it has so easily been debunked as utter nonsense by qualified scientists.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 25, 2012, 11:46:51 AM
Faulty aggressive slam #1 LessGov's claim - not MINE!

Pathetic rebuttal #1 - answering my cut and paste with a WRONG cut and paste reference from your favorite creation-bashing website TalkOrigins.

For the Record: The discovery I originally referenced was NOT "The original claim was that in 1976 a fossil of a whale was discovered in California that was in polystrate position. "; but rather "a discovery announced in Geology in 2004 of 346 whale fossils buried in diatomaceous earth (see 2/02/2004).  That discovery was published by creation geologists who believe a global flood was responsible for their burial…."

Kinda hard for you to pay attention when I have poisoned the well with SO MUCH evidence that could be attributed to a WORLDWIDE DELUGE that occurred about 4400 years ago; and all you have is your precious ad hominem attacks on Hovind because the IRS went after him and he didn't attend a University where his direct rebuttal and refusal to swallow the LIE of government-funded propaganda called evolution theory would have interfered with his completion of their degree.

First of all: 14°52'11.34"S, 74°50'06.18"W is NOT in California ...

Second of all: it was not "a fossil of a whale" - it was rather "346 well-preserved whales (mostly baleen whales) plus a menagerie of other creatures—sharks, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, and penguins—all fossilized at various depths beneath an elongated strip 370 acres in area and 3,800 feet above sea level." - "buried primarily in nonlayered diatomaceous earth"

Creationists call discoveries like these "Evidence of [a] compression event"...ya know...evidence of "rapid burial" which is HOW fossilization occurs...or, has that been disproven? 

Do you have evidence that the petrified trees found in the vertical position through multiple rock layers, or, any dinosaur finds originally occurred through "a slow burial"?

Petrified trees through many layers! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DI49ZFIvWA#)

Are "Diatoms ... microscopic organisms living near the surface of open water—oceans or lakes."?

Does "(A teaspoon of diatoms contain hundreds of millions of individual skeletons.)"?

"When diatoms die, [do] their silica skeletons slowly sink."?

"In deep water, [does] the silica often dissolves before reaching the sea floor."?

Is it plausible that "Today, in shallow seas, a mushy layer of diatoms can accumulate at rates of up to 0.1 inch per year."?

Does a discovery of "346 well-preserved whales (mostly baleen whales) plus a menagerie of other creatures—sharks, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, and penguins—all fossilized ... buried primarily in nonlayered diatomaceous earth" favor evolution theory and millions of years, or, rapid burial in a flood?

I've made up my mind - goodbye Xerses and Monroetalks - see you all in a few perhaps...

[everyone has my express permission to believe whatever they want about the origin of life, and heap to themselves research, articles, writings, teachers, and theological instruction that is consistent with their PERSONAL worldview - as well as - my BLESSING should they choose to IGNORE people who have nothing better to do with their time than tear down and ridicule their INDIVIDUAL belief system]

"to belittle...is to BE LITTLE"
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 25, 2012, 11:52:57 AM
Sooo...you're taking your ball and going home?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 25, 2012, 11:58:10 AM

I've made up my mind - goodbye Xerses and Monroetalks - see you all in a few perhaps...


That's too bad. I was just about to expose the nonsense of your last post.

[superhero voice] Maybe next time, you Dastardly Villain! [\superhero voice]
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 25, 2012, 09:00:38 PM
Scientists are creating synthetic life. Recently they mixed rat hearts with plastic and shocked a "jellyfish" into animation. Does this prove intelligent design?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/synthetic-jellyfish-a-hybrid-of-rat-hearts-and-plastic/ (http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/synthetic-jellyfish-a-hybrid-of-rat-hearts-and-plastic/)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 25, 2012, 09:09:47 PM
Does this prove intelligent design?

As much as the recurrent laryngeal nerve does.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 26, 2012, 09:34:51 AM
c'mon ... everyone is WAITING ...

I mean, you cited the wrong whale refutation from TalkOrigins immediately, as though you THOUGHT you nailed us in the creation camp; you said you have what it takes to "expose the nonsense" at hand ... do I really have to ask?

Does a discovery of "346 well-preserved whales (mostly baleen whales) plus a menagerie of other creatures—sharks, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, and penguins—all fossilized ... buried primarily in nonlayered diatomaceous earth" favor evolution theory and millions of years, or, rapid burial in a flood?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Baggins on July 26, 2012, 10:05:06 AM
Evolution is creationism.


A rose by any other name...I find it hard to understand why so many people have a problem with this.

No one in the scientific field has ever said evolution is not the work of God.

Evolution is the name of the process of change over extremely long periods of time, not an explanation of why or even how...!  Though the why should be some what easy to understand, things need to change to their environment or die...
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 11:27:16 AM
c'mon ... everyone is WAITING ...

I mean, you cited the wrong whale refutation from TalkOrigins immediately, as though you THOUGHT you nailed us in the creation camp; you said you have what it takes to "expose the nonsense" at hand ... do I really have to ask?

Does a discovery of "346 well-preserved whales (mostly baleen whales) plus a menagerie of other creatures—sharks, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, and penguins—all fossilized ... buried primarily in nonlayered diatomaceous earth" favor evolution theory and millions of years, or, rapid burial in a flood?

This is a complete argument from ignorance.

As was said, "The other whale skeletons which have been found in these quarries lie parallel to the bedding and owe their modern attitude to tectonics rather then some mythical catastrophe."

Sometimes they even find the distribution of fossils in strata upside down compared to the norm. Tectonics, etc., can cause large portions of strata to be reversed or turned vertically. Or, you'll get areas of common flooding and mudslides, which can produce such layers every few generations. Paleontologists compare fossils and various dating methods are used, also, one takes things in the CONTEXT of where they were found. Is that an area where tectonics could reverse or cause vertical layers? Or, was this particular place by a water bed site, where common flooding and mudslides took place? Of course.

Come back with something less refutable.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 26, 2012, 11:31:08 AM
Baggins:  There is a question that "if evolution is true", is that consistent with the nature of the God of the Bible with reference to HOW the Bible says He did it - in six literal 24-hour days, "and [He said] it was good"(actually, it was PERFECT).

Does God need millions of years, untold sufferings, death and mutations in a grand scheme to get the world to a point that a species of "animals" would come along and worship Him...that doesn't make sense to most people who believe in God.

See, I butt heads with Xerxes because he mocks the 6-day creation account, and the flood - and he claims - he was a former believer.  I, of course, am of the mind that the God of the Bible has revealed Himself to His creation  - and due to Adam's initial act of clear disobedience, sin entered the world; it got so bad God judged His entire creation in the flood of Noah's day, and the sin curse is still with us today.

(now Xerxes, don't get distracted here - I still want the evolution explanation for the whales in diatomaceuos Earth - the petrified trees standing up(even the upside down ones) through multiple rock layers - and them giant stone formations I linked to in some previous thread without the use of the word "probably"; since I too can say God "probably" created the world and flooded it and "probagbly" sent His Son, and He "probably" resurrected from the dead, and people "probably" go to Heaven when they die of Christ's blood pays their sin debt.)

Baggins, it is a question worth asking those who say they believe God exists... did the God of the Bible use the evolution theory of 406 Billion years ago there was a cosmic burp, then it rained on the rocks for millions of years and life evolved from non living material, became apes, then humans?...as our PUBLIC SCHOOLS and universities teach with TAX DOLLARS(which favors the God didn't do it - it's all "natural" in a God-less world).

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 26, 2012, 11:35:25 AM
oops - Xerxes and I were on here at the same time - and a quick peek prompts me to say what a LOSER answer Xerxes ... TOTALLY DOA ... no PROOF for evolution and PROOF the worldwide flood did NOT happen at all in your LAZY, cut and paste, BIASED dribble ... 

REFUTE how the burial happened ... REFUTE substantively, and with 100% total PROOF that it is 1000% IMPOSSIBLE for it to have happened in the FLOOD of Noah's day 4400 years ago ... go ahead .... we'll wait :D
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 11:39:49 AM

Does God need millions of years, untold sufferings, death and mutations in a grand scheme to get the world to a point that a species of "animals" would come along and worship Him...that doesn't make sense to most people who believe in God.

At least you realize evolution DOES conflict with religious belief, as some wish to think it doesn't. It highly conflicts with the Christian view of original sin and salvation.


Quote
(now Xerxes, don't get distracted here - I still want the evolution explanation for the whales in diatomaceuos Earth - the petrified trees standing up(even the upside down ones) through multiple rock layers - and them giant stone formations I linked to in some previous thread without the use of the word "probably"; since I too can say God "probably" created the world and flooded it and "probagbly" sent His Son, and He "probably" resurrected from the dead, and people "probably" go to Heaven when they die of Christ's blood pays their sin debt.)

I addressed your argument above.


Quote
...it is a question worth asking those who say they believe God exists... did the God of the Bible use the evolution theory of 406 Billion years ago there was a cosmic burp, then it rained on the rocks for millions of years and life evolved from non living material, became apes, then humans?...as our PUBLIC SCHOOLS and universities teach with TAX DOLLARS(which favors the God didn't do it - it's all "natural" in a God-less world).

What an argument from ignorance. No scientist says it was a mere cosmic burp and merely raining on rocks.

Less, you'd agree, as we have proven, that you can fuse together hydrogen and make helium? Suns are massively hot and such heat causes atoms to become more like plasma and they fuse together making the higher elements. So, there an evolution of elements.

After that you get atoms that begin to share electrons, you know what those are called? Molecules. So, there's an evolution of molecules. Did you know molecules can interact with each others, according to the laws of nature, and form into amino acids. There there is an evolution of molecules and chemicals, etc., etc., etc., until you get the evolution of higher and higher forms.

It's a VERY complex play and evolution driven by the energy of the inflation and laws of psychics. It's not just some magical process. The Christians and Muslims believe in a magical creation that was just POOFED into existence, not Science.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 11:52:13 AM
oops - Xerxes and I were on here at the same time - and a quick peek prompts me to say what a LOSER answer Xerxes ... TOTALLY DOA ... no PROOF for evolution and PROOF the worldwide flood did NOT happen at all in your LAZY, cut and paste, BIASED dribble ... 

Logical fallacy. You never addressed my argument.

Less, I've giving you the answer from Geologists and Paleontologists. They are experts in their fields and certainly not lazy. They state that polystrate fossils are found in places where tectonics are the cause, or in places of common flooding and mudslides. They determine this by various reliable methods. Shouldn't you self have already studied the counter-argument of your beliefs?

Your bible says, "A lazy man in wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can render a reason." Isn't it amazing that creationists, like Less, who have not taken any real time to study these things in depth (due to laziness or fear, etc.), know geology and paleontology more so than scientists, who are experts in their fields and spend their entire life observing and coming to understand how these things are?


Quote
REFUTE how the burial happened ... REFUTE substantively, and with 100% total PROOF that it is 1000% IMPOSSIBLE for it to have happened in the FLOOD of Noah's day 4400 years ago ... go ahead .... we'll wait :D

Shifting the Burden of Proof. You're just not getting it.

I don't have to prove some miraculous flood! I see no evidence of it, nor do experts. You're making the POSITIVE claim of there being this flood, so YOU provide real evidence.

Look at Lake Erie. There was a global flood, 4400 years ago, all salt water mixes with the fresh water of the great lakes, and all the fish die, as they realistically would. The waters recede and all the fresh water fish of Michigan are floating upside down. God snaps his fingers and they resurrect. Then God sorts out the modern Michigan species from the fossilized ones we find, just to make it look like those extinct species never lived with the ones of today. Then God magically sends species out around the world to make it seem like genetic drift is true, and then sorts the fossils to be consistent with drift as well.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 26, 2012, 01:02:27 PM
We are still waiting here for the refutation of Noah's flood, even creation scientists admit tectonics happened...we're looking for the PROOF that this find(these finds) cannot be explained by the creation and flood account.

I mean, it seems to me the door is open to the 6-day creation account and the flood; those two cataclysms that Peter wrote you DENY through uniformatarianism and a pull to follow after your own selfish lusts in willful ignorance of the Creator's abilities that you call mythological...the BURDEN of PROOF is clearly on you since your side uses tax dollars to mock
Christian beliefs/faith in the bible, as well as children of belivers....

I mean really, Xerxes....disprove it happened the way God said it did, and prove creation scientists are liars selling snake oil through finds like this...Hovind got rich off leading people to Christ through creation evangelism??? Then WHY would ANY science teacher/politician/business leader call themself a Christian at all?

Don't they know beforehand that these silly mythological stories would be credited to their account rendering them as gullible mental midgets, unqualified for titles of prestige, recognition, fame, or respect?

How come none of your God-denying clan has managed to take over power and place, as open mockers of biblical Christianity....why do they have to say they are Christians, support Israel(God's chosen - same God of course), in order to gain credibility? 

If you guys are the "brights" Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine said you are(as Hovind pointed out in his last debate with him), how long is it gonna take you guys to save the world from believing in so much mythology?

C'mon man....give me something to BELIEVE!!!!!!
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 26, 2012, 01:11:40 PM
Here you go buddy.  I'm at work or I would quote specific texts as to why the flood account doesn't work.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 01:13:25 PM
We are still waiting here for the refutation of Noah's flood, even creation scientists admit tectonics happened...we're looking for the PROOF that this find(these finds) cannot be explained by the creation and flood account.

Less, that's like asking people to disprove any other creation myth, etc. Why should yours demand anything more than theirs?

Here's the thing. Science doesn't employ the miracles of Yahweh, Allah, or any other god. There's no reason to interpret reality in the light of miracles. You only read in something like that when all naturalistic explanations have been completely exhausted.

So far, all naturalistic explanation of nature are the BEST ones. If everything is making perfect sense without a a global flood, then why should we read an elephant into the cloud? This world makes best sense in the light of there NOT being a global flood.


Quote
I mean, it seems to me the door is open to the 6-day creation account and the flood; those two cataclysms that Peter wrote you DENY through uniformatarianism and a pull to follow after your own selfish lusts in willful ignorance of the Creator's abilities that you call mythological...the BURDEN of PROOF is clearly on you since your side uses tax dollars to mock
Christian beliefs/faith in the bible, as well as children of belivers....

I mean really, Xerxes....disprove it happened the way God said it did, and prove creation scientists are liars selling snake oil through finds like this...Hovind got rich off leading people to Christ through creation evangelism??? Then WHY would ANY science teacher/politician/business leader call themself a Christian at all?

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Are you not getting it? Wow... 


Quote
Don't they know beforehand that these silly mythological stories would be credited to their account rendering them as gullible mental midgets, unqualified for titles of prestige, recognition, fame, or respect?

How come none of you God-denying clan has managed to take over power and place, as open mockers of biblical Christianity....why do they have to say they are Christians, support Israel(God's chosen - same God of course), in order to gain credibility? 

Some people are just delusional. That's reality. If they can't offer good reason and evidence they'll be called delusional, in the same way you think a Hindu or a Mormon is delusional, for believing in gods that cannot be shown to be real.


Quote
If you guys are the "brights" Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine said you are(as Hovind pointed out in his last debate with him), how long is it gonna take you guys to save the world from believing in so much mythology?

C'mon man....give me something to BELIEVE!!!!!!

Less, we live in a world where up to half the population has a mental disorder that could be diagnosed. Not to far in our past people were alchemists. They believed our souls were in our heads, etc., etc..

It's going to take awhile to disillusion the masses through education, reason, and science. We're growing up as a species, but we still believe in the Santa in the Heavenly North Pole.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 26, 2012, 03:59:37 PM
I’m sorry Xerxes, but I believe the audience was looking for an answer that says something like: “a discovery announced in Geology in 2004 of 346 whale fossils…at coordinates 14°52'11.34"S, 74°50'06.18"W… buried primarily in non-layered diatomaceous earth…published by creation geologists who believe a global flood was responsible for their burial…. is NOT evidence for the biblical account of a worldwide flood approximately 4400 years ago BECAUSE … Diatoms ARE NOT ... microscopic organisms living near the surface of open water—oceans or lakes…a teaspoon of diatoms DOES NOT contain hundreds of millions of individual skeletons…silica skeletons DO NOT slowly sink when diatoms die… silica DOES NOT often dissolve in deep water before reaching the sea floor…and today, in shallow seas, a mushy layer of diatoms DOES NOT accumulate at rates of up to 0.1 inch per year.”

But you didn't ... why not?

Heck, you didn’t even say the discovery is an exaggerated hoax by IRS-fleeing creationist snake-oil salesman who appear on TBN, who also have non-accredited degrees in fields of science.  You didn’t even QUESTION the count of 346. 

But instead you gave us:

1)   This is a complete argument from ignorance.
2)   Sometimes they even find the distribution of fossils in strata upside down compared to the norm.  Tectonics happens, DUH!
3)   mudslides…can produce such layers(even though the discovery was in NON-LAYERED diatomeceous earth
4)   Paleontologists compare fossils and various dating methods are used, also; when NO DATES were mentioned – we’re just talking rapid burial of 346 whales and “a menagerie of other creatures—sharks, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, and penguins”, as perhaps in a worldwide flood
5)   “contextual” questions(psuedo-intellectual DISTRACTION) about whether or not the geographical location is reverse/vertical layer tectonic friendly or by a water bed site. – are you fishing to insinuate that that was a LOCAL flood after one tectonic incident in this instance?  WHY couldn’t the “compression event” have taken place approximately 4400 years ago in the cataclysmic event known as Noah’s flood when the “mountains of the deep broke open”?
6)   Come back with something less refutable.

You then piled on with:

"No scientist says it was a mere cosmic burp and merely raining on rocks." – I’m afraid the textbooks Hovind used PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of in his seminars are REPLEAT with that fairy tale!!!  Shall I embed Hovind’s creation seminar #1 called The Age of the Earth that POISONS THE WELL with facts that your side teaches this garbage with TAX DOLLARS to kids whose parents/clergy have taught them God created them?  Anyone who looks up the authors of these textbooks that publish these LIES about origins will find out that it is government-funded SCIENTISTS who concluded nothing exploded in the Big Bang, and it rained on the rocks for millions of years…with NO PROOF.

Then you went on with some attempt to sound smart/superior in scientific knowledge to anyone reading by talking about hydrogen, helium, the Sun and the evolution of elements which has NOTHING to do with what I asked you with respect to the discovery FAVORING evolution theory/flood account…

Let’s see, then some question then about atoms sharing electrons…laws of nature(but nature doesn’t have a God who AUTHORED ALL OF THE SCIENCE WE OBSERVE TODAY, of course)…ummm…amino acids….then the “polystrate fossil” mention AGAIN, even though the discovery I asked you to REFUTE as NOT POSSIBLE in a flood 4400 years ago was in NON-LAYERED diatomaceous earth…then you slam me for NOT studying the counter-arguments to my faith(when I have already whipped you numerous times because your ATTITUDE exposes your motives for Christian-bashing)…then you try to turn the Bible back on me saying I am lazy and fearful that the discovery of  “a discovery announced in Geology in 2004 of 346 whale fossils…at coordinates 14°52'11.34"S, 74°50'06.18"W… buried primarily in non-layered diatomaceous earth…published by creation geologists who believe a global flood was responsible for their burial…. is NOT evidence for the biblical account of a worldwide flood approximately 4400 years ago”

Then Forsyth chimes in from work with a link to TalkOrigins and why the flood account doesn’t work – which – I was hoping Xerxes would apply to the 346 whales plus others in non-layered diatomecous earth discovery(that HOVIND does not mention in his seminars BTW)…but he hasn’t…then Xerxes comes back with more insults that I am shifting the burden of proof, even though I have clearly explained that the burden of proof is ON the supporters of his fairy tale theory that God DIDN’T create earth, or man, or flood His creation, or send His Son for the remission/forgiveness of sins with TAX DOLLARS…and an indirect attempt to call believers DELUSIONAL…and finally a collective blanket statement that “we live in a world where up to half the population has a mental disorder that could be diagnosed” which is NOT ONLY totally unrelated to disproving the flood account explaining the rapid burial pf the 346 whales(let alone the petrified trees as SHOWN in the 6:25 Hovind clip that poisons the well about the Geologic Column…BUT ALSO a reflection of the faux field of psychology where people profit off people who won’t look in the mirror and admit the primary reason they experience suffering. Setbacks, and have a lack of peace in their lives is because they live in direct disobedience to the Word of God, the Creator’s moral absolutes and “laws of Nature’s God”.

He finally asserts that the world will eventually come around to his way of thinking(this species that presumably evolved from ape-like ancestors like the scientist-authored, TAXPAYER FUNDED textbooks teach), and drop our disillusions about things that do not exist(like our souls and our spirit, and a God who authored them in the makeup of humans) through “education, reason, and science.”[married to the evolution idea that humans are getting smarter and better and stronger and … we came from apes and one day we might adapt/genetically modify into having the abilities of Batman, Superman, Spider-man, and the Hulk IF the genes beneficially mutate in the right way over millions of more years]

So, we’ll try again – if there was a COMPRESSION EVENT, that occurred “at coordinates 14°52'11.34"S, 74°50'06.18"W…as was announced in Geology in 2004 …regarding a discovery of  346 whale fossils…and a menagerie of other creatures—sharks, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, and penguins… buried primarily in non-layered diatomaceous earth…” – do you have a scientific explanation that FAVORS evolution theory so much so that DWARFS any possibility that this “rapid burial” could have occurred approximately 4400 years ago in a worldwide flood(a cataclysm, a judgment  by God) where the mountains of the deep broke open?

While we are still waiting - for you to disprove the flood - I will poison the well with this ...[examples of tax-payer funded scientists/university professors publishing YOUR RELIGION in textbooks]  ;D

Lies In The Textbooks 11 of 15 ( Kent Hovind ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_qK9MTbVI#)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 04:50:19 PM
I’m sorry Xerxes, but I believe the audience was looking for an answer that says something like: “a discovery announced in Geology in 2004 of 346 whale fossils…at coordinates 14°52'11.34"S, 74°50'06.18"W… buried primarily in non-layered diatomaceous earth…published by creation geologists who believe a global flood was responsible for their burial…. is NOT evidence for the biblical account of a worldwide flood approximately 4400 years ago BECAUSE … Diatoms ARE NOT ... microscopic organisms living near the surface of open water—oceans or lakes…a teaspoon of diatoms DOES NOT contain hundreds of millions of individual skeletons…silica skeletons DO NOT slowly sink when diatoms die… silica DOES NOT often dissolve in deep water before reaching the sea floor…and today, in shallow seas, a mushy layer of diatoms DOES NOT accumulate at rates of up to 0.1 inch per year.”

But you didn't ... why not?

Heck, you didn’t even say the discovery is an exaggerated hoax by IRS-fleeing creationist snake-oil salesman who appear on TBN, who also have non-accredited degrees in fields of science.  You didn’t even QUESTION the count of 346.

"No scientist says it was a mere cosmic burp and merely raining on rocks." – I’m afraid the textbooks Hovind used PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence of in his seminars are REPLEAT with that fairy tale!!!  Shall I embed Hovind’s creation seminar #1 called The Age of the Earth that POISONS THE WELL with facts that your side teaches this garbage with TAX DOLLARS to kids whose parents/clergy have taught them God created them?  Anyone who looks up the authors of these textbooks that publish these LIES about origins will find out that it is government-funded SCIENTISTS who concluded nothing exploded in the Big Bang, and it rained on the rocks for millions of years…with NO PROOF.

Then you went on with some attempt to sound smart/superior in scientific knowledge to anyone reading by talking about hydrogen, helium, the Sun and the evolution of elements which has NOTHING to do with what I asked you with respect to the discovery FAVORING evolution theory/flood account…

Let’s see, then some question then about atoms sharing electrons…laws of nature(but nature doesn’t have a God who AUTHORED ALL OF THE SCIENCE WE OBSERVE TODAY, of course)…ummm…amino acids….then the “polystrate fossil” mention AGAIN, even though the discovery I asked you to REFUTE as NOT POSSIBLE in a flood 4400 years ago was in NON-LAYERED diatomaceous earth…then you slam me for NOT studying the counter-arguments to my faith(when I have already whipped you numerous times because your ATTITUDE exposes your motives for Christian-bashing)…then you try to turn the Bible back on me saying I am lazy and fearful that the discovery of  “a discovery announced in Geology in 2004 of 346 whale fossils…at coordinates 14°52'11.34"S, 74°50'06.18"W… buried primarily in non-layered diatomaceous earth…published by creation geologists who believe a global flood was responsible for their burial…. is NOT evidence for the biblical account of a worldwide flood approximately 4400 years ago”

Then Forsyth chimes in from work with a link to TalkOrigins and why the flood account doesn’t work – which – I was hoping Xerxes would apply to the 346 whales plus others in non-layered diatomecous earth discovery(that HOVIND does not mention in his seminars BTW)…but he hasn’t…then Xerxes comes back with more insults that I am shifting the burden of proof, even though I have clearly explained that the burden of proof is ON the supporters of his fairy tale theory that God DIDN’T create earth, or man, or flood His creation, or send His Son for the remission/forgiveness of sins with TAX DOLLARS…and an indirect attempt to call believers DELUSIONAL…and finally a collective blanket statement that “we live in a world where up to half the population has a mental disorder that could be diagnosed” which is NOT ONLY totally unrelated to disproving the flood account explaining the rapid burial pf the 346 whales(let alone the petrified trees as SHOWN in the 6:25 Hovind clip that poisons the well about the Geologic Column…BUT ALSO a reflection of the faux field of psychology where people profit off people who won’t look in the mirror and admit the primary reason they experience suffering. Setbacks, and have a lack of peace in their lives is because they live in direct disobedience to the Word of God, the Creator’s moral absolutes and “laws of Nature’s God”.

He finally asserts that the world will eventually come around to his way of thinking(this species that presumably evolved from ape-like ancestors like the scientist-authored, TAXPAYER FUNDED textbooks teach), and drop our disillusions about things that do not exist(like our souls and our spirit, and a God who authored them in the makeup of humans) through “education, reason, and science.”[married to the evolution idea that humans are getting smarter and better and stronger and … we came from apes and one day we might adapt/genetically modify into having the abilities of Batman, Superman, Spider-man, and the Hulk IF the genes beneficially mutate in the right way over millions of more years]

So, we’ll try again – if there was a COMPRESSION EVENT, that occurred “at coordinates 14°52'11.34"S, 74°50'06.18"W…as was announced in Geology in 2004 …regarding a discovery of  346 whale fossils…and a menagerie of other creatures—sharks, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, and penguins… buried primarily in non-layered diatomaceous earth…” – do you have a scientific explanation that FAVORS evolution theory so much so that DWARFS any possibility that this “rapid burial” could have occurred approximately 4400 years ago in a worldwide flood(a cataclysm, a judgment  by God) where the mountains of the deep broke open?

While we are still waiting - for you to disprove the flood - I will poison the well with this ...[examples of tax-payer funded scientists/university professors publishing YOUR RELIGION in textbooks]

To appeal to a flood is an Argument from Ignorance that is employing a God of the Gaps Fallacy.

Remember, Science does NOT employ miracles. They don't even bring miracles into the picture, especially when there's no need to. If there is any naturalistic explanation it's to be favored over tales of miracles found in so-called holy scriptures.

You are ignorant of real geology, as most creationists are, and you, like them, in ignorance say GOD did it! God of the Gaps Fallacy.

Here's a scientific explanation of the burial of those whales, and it wasn't even in response to a global flood.

Anoxia or extensive diatom mats don’t seem to be adequate explanations for the unusual whale preservation or the lack of invertebrate scavengers and lack of bioturbation. The evidence for shallow water and high energy do not favor anoxia, and the sediment contains evidence of broken-up mats, but not intact series of mats. Several lines of evidence seem to allow the possibility that the Pisco Formation diatomaceous sediment accumulated more rapidly than commonly occurs today. For example, Pisco Formation diatom frustules do not show evidence of dissolution, perhaps because, in the relatively shallow water, they accumulated too rapidly to dissolve. Sedimentary structures also indicate tidal current action and storms, which could have acted to concentrate diatoms in the shallow bays along the Peruvian coast. The well-preserved whale carcasses seem to require rapid burial, within weeks to months for any given whale, to account for their preservation and articulation, including fossilization of some nonbony tissues. This necessity of rapid burial indicates that, at times in the past, diatom accumulation rates were much higher than those typical in modern oceans. This rapid accumulation was most likely predominantly the result of lateral advection of phytoplankton by currents and/or storms into shallow bays. The volume of phytoplankton available for advection was enhanced by abundant blooms offshore, as most diatom species represent environments with deeper   water than the bays in which they accumulated.

Source:

Quote
Leonard R. Brand - Department of Natural Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92350, USA

Raul Esperante Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California 92350, USA

Arthur V. Chadwick Biology Department, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas 76059, USA

Orlando Poma Porras & Merling Alomia - University of Peruana Union, Carretera Central, Lima, Peru

This argument by creationists was formulated from an article Geology, February 2004, and from Fossil Whale Preservation Implies High Diatom Accumulations Rate in the Miocene-Pliocene Pisco Formation of Peru,” Geological Society of America, Vol. 32, February 2004, pp. 165–168.

The writer of the article (Brand) added:

“These self-burial processes could have hastened carcass burial somewhat” (p. 168). But what caused the massive number of whales to die in the first place, and what caused the rapid burial? Brand and his colleagues postulated that “it appears that the diatoms were not only gently settling out of the water column, but were also being advected and redeposited by currents resulting from tides and/or storms. A three-day storm along the Oregon coast formed a modern deposit of diatoms that was 10-15 cm thick and 32 km long” (p. 168).


So the writer gives a plausible explanation apart from employing some miracle, and then gives another example of this taking place.

Just like the historical method, the improbabilities of miracles are left out for more likely explanations, especially explanations that are reproduced in nature!

You just got owned.  8)


Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 26, 2012, 04:57:36 PM
Ummmm if you look at the link it provides creationist claims and the scientific rebuttals with citations.  The flood account is simply not possible for a multitude of reasons.  As for your claim about the whales I will look that up, but something tells me there is junk science behind it, like there is for all creationist claims.


Thanks Xerxes.....i appreciate that.  What's the score now?


Hmmm maybe I should take some time one weekend to dissect Hovinds "thesis"  it wouldnt take me that long but I want to give enough time so I can throughly tear it apart.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 05:00:11 PM

Thanks Xerxes.....i appreciate that.  What's the score now?


Score: Evolution = Reality, Creationism = Delusion.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 26, 2012, 05:12:56 PM
Score: Evolution = Reality, Creationism = Delusion.

To quote Celebrity Deathmatch "I'll allow it!"
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 26, 2012, 05:52:16 PM
Show where natural selection created a new species.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 06:03:52 PM
Show where natural selection created a new species.


First of all, I hope you're not asking for what is impossible. I'm not saying you are, but I often hear people demanding scientists show them millions of years of evolution instantly in a lab.


Duck, as I've made the case:


Michigan (North America): Cormorant


(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/10c2k.jpg)



Galapagos Islands (South America): Flightless Cormorant


(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/8PeBj.jpg)



The Galapagos Islands, like many Islands, arose from volcanic activity. They date, roughly, five million years old, at the oldest. When volcanic magma cools it creates igneous rock. Within this igneous rock are crystals with radioactive isotopes of potassium-40, which decay at a constant rate into argon-40. When the rocks first cool there isn't any argon-40, only potassium-40; therefore, the rocks are zeroed in. When the rock cools, the timer starts!

When they look at the ratio of potassium-40 and argon-40, in relation to the constant decay rate, they can accurately tell you how old those igneous rocks are. Some creationists say water can affect this, but that's not true, as water would not wash the isotopes out of the inside of crystals.



The cormorants, as you see here in Michigan, fly to South America every year, and then return to North America. A few million years ago, a group of cormorants went off course and found themselves on the Galapagos Islands. It's always warm and there is plenty of food, so they remained on these Islands. They no longer needed to drive, as cormorants are divers, so they swam around the shore lines eating the many fish that swim the shores.

Being they no longer need to fly to survive, natural selection is weeding the wing out. The energy used to preserve the wing is going into their feet, etc., to make them better swimmers. And something interesting is the standard cormorants, being divers, dry their wings in the wind, as seen in the pictures, for it's hard to fly with heavy wings. The flightless cormorant can no longer fly, but they dry their wings in the wind, as if they can fly. It's a *Vestigial Behavior*. What makes sense of this? Evolution.

With this it's established a species genetic make up is not immutable.

You find in a few million years, due to genetic drift and natural selection, the difference between the standard and flightless cormorant. If such changes happen within a few million years, what would happen of 50 million years of drifting, 100 million years? Also, if you factor in extinction and the wild branching within drifting, you see speciation through natural selection making perfect sense, and the mathematics work just fine.

What makes more sense, that genetic drift (evolution) did this, or that 4,000 years ago, some god magically teleported the flightless cormorant across the ocean to this Island. He, also, teleported the lemurs to Madagascar to make it look like evolution by genetic drift is true; as he did with the marsupials of Australia?

And there are a TON of living transitions. Beatles that have wings but can't fly. Dew claws on dogs. I could go on and on about vestigial organs, limbs, and behaviors in nature. There is no "missing link," according to biologists, as *Everything* is a transitional form, even you!



Look at a modern chicken or turkey in relation to a feathered dinosaur.


Epidepixteryx (Jurassic):


(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/l0d4C.jpg)


Turkey (Modern Times):


(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/ax3po.gif)


You will *never* find a modern turkey or chicken where you find these feathered dinosaurs. You know why? They never lived together. Modern birds descended from them.

Notice the epidepixteryx has teeth, like most feathered dinosaurs from that time. Sometimes modern chickens are born with teeth. Why is that? They have a gene for teeth and a simple mutation can reactivate what natural selection switched off. It's a fossil-gene that can mutate and produce an *atavism*. This is another strong evidence of common ancestry.

Notice how most feathered dinosaurs have fingers and claws. Then look at the dissected wing of a modern turkey, they have a finger with a small claw! Why a claw and finger under the wing? The claw is a vestige. They are clearly transitions from earlier forms! Modern birds also have reptilian like scales on their legs, like that of dinosaurs, as feathers, scales, and hair are made from the same gene; and made of ceratin. Also, modern birds and feathered dinosaurs have pneumatic bones. Compare the feet of the two!


This is a strong case for modern birds descending from dinosaurs, and there are many more examples in DNA, Homology, etc. to support descent with modification. Evolution makes sense of everything in nature's biology, but opposing theories fail to make sense of reality.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 26, 2012, 06:19:35 PM
Am I asking the impossible?  I understand the argument of genetic drift, but wanted a case of fossil records or maybe something in recorded time of a species jump.  Of course I am not expecting that you can go back in time and state how algae became a fish, or fish became a reptile, or fish became a mammal. 

Many species have very short lives and mutate more quickly, isn’t there some mutation from an insect to a bird, or an algae to a fish in recorded history?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 06:24:43 PM
Am I asking the impossible?  I understand the argument of genetic drift, but wanted a case of fossil records or maybe something in recorded time of a species jump.  Of course I am not expecting that you can go back in time and state how algae became a fish, or fish became a reptile, or fish became a mammal. 

Many species have very short lives and mutate more quickly, isn’t there some mutation from an insect to a bird, or an algae to a fish in recorded history?


You don't expect jumps. 600 million years of crazy sex will provide the subtle changes natural selection works with. Jumps in mutations are often injurious, where small ones are beneficial. As we see with the Cormorant, over 4 million years, there's no leap, only small accumulating changes, which are weeding out the wing and modifying their feet, etc.

And, as I pointed out earlier in this thread:

What gets most people is they haven't researched fossilization and genetic drift, etc. Over 99% of animals that die do not fossilize.

This is a good analogy at what the fossil record is like. Say a baby is born, and the parents take a picture of the baby everyday of its life until it's 60. If you compare pictures day to day, you don't see much difference. But if you compare a picture from 5 years old, and one from 30 years old, you can see how this being changed over time.

Now! Take all the pictures, bundle them together and throw them in a fire. Let them burn for a good 30 seconds, then put the fire out. Sort through the picture fragments. Out of the 20,000, or so, pictures you'll find a quarter of a picture of when the person was 5. A half of a picture of when they were 27. A whole picture of when they were 11. A 10th of when they were 43, etc., etc.

That's what the fossil record is like. There were BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of past forms, but very very  few fossilized. So, we have a fragmented history to sort through. There were plenty of humanoid like species, like Neanderthals, that died out. We happen to be the one, in the group of the family, that made it successfully.

And something to remember, is when they find past humanoid fossils the brain stem holes are in different places, showing a slow evolution, etc. You never find modern human structures among those ancestors of ours, they have different anatomies to a degree. Also, you never find modern turkeys and chickens with feathered dinosaurs. You never find humans fossils or dogs in the Permian, etc.

Once one has a firm understanding of natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, etc., it all comes together in perfect sense. And I already pointed out the evidence of ERV's in our genome compared to Chimpanzees, which only makes sense in light of common ancestry. I can provide myriad evidences in our DNA for common ancestry, if you like.

If one looks in the mirror then looks at their child, that's the rate in which evolution takes place. No child is ever exact to its parents, due to mutations in germ cells. These small accumulating changes over millions of years drive a species to slowly appear different over time. DNA stores changes; therefore, most changes are permanent, and things must be driven to ever change.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Baggins on July 26, 2012, 06:31:16 PM
Am I asking the impossible?  I understand the argument of genetic drift, but wanted a case of fossil records or maybe something in recorded time of a species jump.  Of course I am not expecting that you can go back in time and state how algae became a fish, or fish became a reptile, or fish became a mammal. 

Many species have very short lives and mutate more quickly, isn’t there some mutation from an insect to a bird, or an algae to a fish in recorded history?


The only example I can think of in that order would be a frogs transformation after hatching from an egg...But I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for.

As far as I understand it, recorded history isn't long enough to have seen a "true" mutation...We're talking 10's of thousands of years and more likely longer for something like that to happen.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 26, 2012, 06:32:26 PM
I see.  So, because there is scientific evidence of drift, then I am to take it on faith that species jumps can happen.  With bacteria going through many generations in a day in a petree dish none changed to a fruit fly.  Even your example of ape to man can be drift and not species change.  So, how is the DNA of a Tasmanian Devil and a Homo sapiens alike?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 06:35:42 PM
As far as I understand it, recorded history isn't long enough to have seen a "true" mutation...We're talking 10's of thousands of years and more likely longer for something like that to happen.

We've seen plenty of mutations, which are beneficial. We've seen populations of species change slightly in shape and color, etc. It's those small accumulating changes that add up over 10,000 years, 50,000 years, 100,000 years, 1,000,000 years, etc., etc...

I can give plenty of examples of observed beneficial mutations.

I read a book called Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll, Biologist. He explains mutations, how they are observed in the lab and in nature, how common they are, and the mathematics behind evolution. Really good read. Even explains gene duplication, which can add new genetic material.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 26, 2012, 06:42:24 PM
Maybe I am not able to communicate properly with this migraine.  I am not asking about genetic drift and minor mutations.  There is abundant proof of that.

I am talking about radical change from aquatic fish to an air breathing mammal.  Now, I know that can't be said because we were not there, but there has to be some change in our recorded time of fast generation organisms making a drastic jump to a whole new species.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 06:47:40 PM
Maybe I am not able to communicate properly with this migraine.  I am not asking about genetic drift and minor mutations.  There is abundant proof of that.

I am talking about radical change from aquatic fish to an air breathing mammal.  Now, I know that can't be said because we were not there, but there has to be some change in our recorded time of fast generation organisms making a drastic jump to a whole new species.

Scientists don't accept ideas of any radical changes. Only small changes that accumulate over time. If you compare a species from 430 million years ago, and to 370 million years, it may appear radically different, but it had 60 million years of accumulating changes. Although, the odds of a more punctuated mutation can be selected in smaller communities, as that aids genetic drift, whereas larger communities tend to weed out more punctuated changes do to genetic drift.

Scientists predicted we've have to find fossils in the Devonian that show the time of transitions from water to land, and they've done just that. Such as with Tiktaalik, etc.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 26, 2012, 06:55:46 PM
This necessity of rapid burial indicates that, at times in the past, diatom accumulation rates were much higher than those typical in modern oceans. - that is a SPECULATIVE STATEMENT, they weren't there, they don't KNOW THAT ... 

This rapid accumulation was most likely  predominantly the result of lateral advection of phytoplankton by currents and/or storms into shallow bays.

The well-preserved whale carcasses seem to require rapid burial, within weeks to months for any given whale, to account for their preservation and articulation, including fossilization of some nonbony tissues.  Someboday has MEASURED rapid burial of whales(in any variety of earth ground substance)?

It's nice that they agree it was a rapid burial, but they didn't rule out the flood as a timeline....

“These self-burial processes could have   hastened carcass burial somewhat”  And the flood COULD HAVE ... doesn't rule our the flood event ...

“it appears that the diatoms were not only gently settling out of the water column, but were also being advected and redeposited by currents resulting from tides and/or storms. A three-day storm along the Oregon coast formed a modern deposit of diatoms that was 10-15 cm thick and 32 km long”    What were the weather conditions during the flood - oh, that's right - the flood is a delusion; a magic trick of an imaginary God that NEVER HAPPENED ... I forgot....

You just got owned. - no I didn't ... you just patted yourself on the back for finding a non-creationists version ... and you peppered it with insults.

The Hovind clip tells the tale of the language your propagandists use, as they pass off their disbelieving garbage as fact ... just because it's printed in textbooks, and they have degrees, doesn't make it true ...

Lots of "probably's" in there still ... lots of geological SCIENCE in the flood account too.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Baggins on July 26, 2012, 07:00:37 PM
We've seen plenty of mutations, which are beneficial. We've seen populations of species change slightly in shape and color, etc. It's those small accumulating changes that add up over 10,000 years, 50,000 years, 100,000 years, 1,000,000 years, etc., etc...

I can give plenty of examples of observed beneficial mutations.

I read a book called Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll, Biologist. He explains mutations, how they are observed in the lab and in nature, how common they are, and the mathematics behind evolution. Really good read. Even explains gene duplication, which can add new genetic material.


I get that, but he was asking for a species to species mutation...I've never heard of a fish walking out of the water in our time though.  But I also think the extreams of environment have the biggest factor in such a change...And the world hasn't had those changes either in thousands of years.  Maybe evolution has run it's course...Or, maybe waiting for that catalyst to spark it again.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: livewire on July 26, 2012, 07:01:17 PM

600 million years of crazy sex...


Hey, hey!!!!!!

Now you're TALKIN'!!!!!   :P :P :P   ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 26, 2012, 07:03:15 PM
How then do you explain mosquitoes in amber from the Jurassic period that are no different than the one I swatted on my arm yesterday.  What is the generational lifespan of a mosquito a few days?  How come no drift, no change, why not a bird?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Baggins on July 26, 2012, 07:20:46 PM
How then do you explain mosquitoes in amber from the Jurassic period that are no different than the one I swatted on my arm yesterday.  What is the generational lifespan of a mosquito a few days?  How come no drift, no change, why not a bird?

My answer is that it has found it's niche and doesn't need to change...Why should it?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 07:23:34 PM
This necessity of rapid burial indicates that, at times in the past, diatom accumulation rates were much higher than those typical in modern oceans. - that is a SPECULATIVE STATEMENT, they weren't there, they don't KNOW THAT ... 

And you were there? And you saw the big boat of Noah? Lol.


Quote
This rapid accumulation was most likely  predominantly the result of lateral advection of phytoplankton by currents and/or storms into shallow bays.

The well-preserved whale carcasses seem to require rapid burial, within weeks to months for any given whale, to account for their preservation and articulation, including fossilization of some nonbony tissues.  Someboday has MEASURED rapid burial of whales(in any variety of earth ground substance)?

It's nice that they agree it was a rapid burial, but they didn't rule out the flood as a timeline....

“These self-burial processes could have   hastened carcass burial somewhat”  And the flood COULD HAVE ... doesn't rule our the flood event ...

“it appears that the diatoms were not only gently settling out of the water column, but were also being advected and redeposited by currents resulting from tides and/or storms. A three-day storm along the Oregon coast formed a modern deposit of diatoms that was 10-15 cm thick and 32 km long”    What were the weather conditions during the flood - oh, that's right - the flood is a delusion; a magic trick of an imaginary God that NEVER HAPPENED ... I forgot....

You just got owned. - no I didn't ... you just patted yourself on the back for finding a non-creationists version ... and you peppered it with insults.

The Hovind clip tells the tale of the language your propagandists use, as they pass off their disbelieving garbage as fact ... just because it's printed in textbooks, and they have degrees, doesn't make it true ...

Lots of "probably's" in there still ... lots of geological SCIENCE in the flood account too.


Again, science discovers the natural world without employing miracles. In this case there is a plausible naturalistic explanation that has been observed to have happened elsewhere.

Come back when you have a real argument.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 07:28:32 PM
How then do you explain mosquitoes in amber from the Jurassic period that are no different than the one I swatted on my arm yesterday.  What is the generational lifespan of a mosquito a few days?  How come no drift, no change, why not a bird?

One reason is gene flow, as I mentioned above. There are a TON of mosquito and they are surviving well as they are; therefore, natural selection will weed out mutations. We're not changing much either because there are 7 billion people interbreeding and we are doing just fine. Such gene flow with forbid genetic drift.

The coelacanth hasn't changed much in millions of years, because it's in a place with little environmental pressures and it is surviving just fine in this stable environment, so for nature to select changes would be injurious.

Baggins hinted at punctuated equilibrium. When an environment is stable species evolve into a equilibrium where change is injurious, but when you get a major disaster that equilibrium is punctuated and natural selection begins to select changes most beneficial for the new environment. Peppered moths are an excellent example.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 07:42:45 PM

Hey, hey!!!!!!

Now you're TALKIN'!!!!!   :P :P :P   ;D ;D ;D

If I was getting more of that I'd be on here less! We both know that's true!  :D :P
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 26, 2012, 07:45:00 PM
Wow, how interesting.  So environmental changes cause drift in some species, and makes some of them stay the same... very interesting conflict.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 07:47:43 PM
Wow, how interesting.  So environmental changes cause drift in some species, and makes some of them stay the same... very interesting conflict.

Depends on the species, and, as Baggins mentioned, their niche in the environment.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 26, 2012, 08:37:41 PM
Come back when you have a real argument.

I'm back ...

Again, science discovers the natural world without employing miracles. In this case there is a plausible naturalistic explanation that has been observed to have happened elsewhere.

Still waiting for your scientific refutation of the rapid burial that MAY HAVE occurred 4400 years ago in a flood that would EMPLOY scientific geological/weather phenomenon, and even leave PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the catastrophic event.

Is this all you have?  Since I say the God of the Bible interferred with His creation, it didn't happen because you say He doesn't exist(and you call believers delusional)?  Really?

Extremely weak, Xerxes - beyond weak ... lazy, I'd say.

Wanna take a stab at this deluded fellow too; whose website hosts the whales buried in diatomeceous Earth discovery?  Maybe you could go find yourself and LEADING evolutionist to debate him, because he won't debate religion...just science.  http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ426.html#wp3116043 (http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ426.html#wp3116043)   

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

His video here might explain how them 346 whales were buried ... an OPPOSING VIEW and alternate possibility to the religion of evolution theory taught in our TAX-FUNDED institutions that advance the LIE that God didn't create, didn't author ANY natural SCIENTIFIC LAWS, didn't flood the Earth nor has never interfered with mankind in anyway because He doesn't exist, Jesus wasn't a deity who healed people miraculously, didn't rise from the dead because people don't do that today, and He wasn't seen by over 500 witnesses...but let's not forget the most important LOGICAL point of all: there is no such thing as sin, angering/provoking the Creator to wrath, nor any moral absolutes.

The Hydroplate Theory - The Flood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKO-vTwYCo8#)

(my guess is you'll just find a cut and paste TalkOrigins piece to bash him)

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 26, 2012, 08:56:08 PM

Still waiting for your scientific refutation of the rapid burial that MAY HAVE occurred 4400 years ago in a flood that would EMPLOY scientific geological/weather phenomenon, and even leave PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the catastrophic event.

Is this all you have?  Since I say the God of the Bible interferred with His creation, it didn't happen because you say He doesn't exist(and you call believers delusional)?  Really?


WTF? I just posted several things where five scientists give an explanation of it, without the need of miracles, and their explanation has been observed elsewhere, so they know this happens.


Quote
Wanna take a stab at this deluded fellow too; whose website hosts the whales buried in diatomeceous Earth discovery?  Maybe you could go find yourself and LEADING evolutionist to debate him, because he won't debate religion...just science. 

[url]http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ426.html#wp3116043[/url] ([url]http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ426.html#wp3116043[/url])   

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

His video here might explain how them 346 whales were buried ... an OPPOSING VIEW and alternate possibility to the religion of evolution theory taught in our TAX-FUNDED institutions that advance the LIE that God didn't create, didn't author ANY natural SCIENTIFIC LAWS, didn't flood the Earth nor has never interfered with mankind in anyway because He doesn't exist, Jesus wasn't a deity who healed people miraculously, didn't rise from the dead because people don't do that today, and He wasn't seen by over 500 witnesses...but let's not forget the most important LOGICAL point of all: there is no such thing as sin, angering/provoking the Creator to wrath, nor any moral absolutes.


Make your point without a video. I don't watch your videos. Anyone can post videos all day and not know a damn thing.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 26, 2012, 10:43:04 PM
WTF? I just posted several things where five scientists give an explanation of it, without the need of miracles, and their explanation has been observed elsewhere, so they know this happens.

You mean THIS: "[b]it appears that the diatoms were not only gently settling out of the water column, but were also being advected and redeposited by currents resulting from tides and/or storms. A three-day storm along the Oregon coast formed a modern deposit of diatoms that was 10-15 cm thick and 32 km long[/b]” : says there is no possible way that a worldwide flood 4400 years ago?  All that they said is IT HAPPENS ... (of course I won't bother with the name-calling, or other choice adjectives, although you have clearly earned them on this CUT and PASTE)

Oh, the flood is a MIRACLE, there is NO GOD...oh,I see; how could I be so STUPID!!!

You OWNED me, Xerxes; now I bow my head in shame ... shall I come to Monroe for a public humiliation?

Make your point without a video. I don't watch your videos. Anyone can post videos all day and not know a damn thing

oooohhhh!!!! Tough guy ... follows up the WTF with the use of the word "damn" to emphasize his assertion that I am stupid because I have watched videos regarding creation science. 

AWESOME win for you Xerxes...just remember....it's not you and me ALONE on here; I think some others WATCH the videos...BTW, can anyone CUT and PASTE too, without READING FIRST what they CUT and PASTED; like when you went for the ONE polystrate Whale in California that was TOTALLY UNRELATED to the 346 buried in diatomeceous earth in/near Peru that I originally posted?

I think that FLOOD THEORY - either Hovind's canopy theory or Walt Brown's hydroplate theory that SUPPORT the Bible account of how God judged His creation, MIGHT JUST POSSIBLY explain how them whales and menegerie of other animals got buried in diatomeceous earth.

Ya know, that Bible is LITERATURE; it's been around for a LONG time - it even might contain an EYEWITNESS accounting of things that ACTUALLY HAPPENED here on Earth - it didn't show up by a MIRACLE within the last few years...but of course YOU KNOW where it came from, who is behind it, and how one day nobody will ever read/believe what is in it's pages again when mankind EVOLVES into superhuman understanding(and rids the Earth of the dumb scum who preach morality and salvation, like me) ;D
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Tiny on July 26, 2012, 11:37:24 PM
The bible says God created everything in six days. A day could have been millions or billions of years. Twenty four-hour days are centered around the spinning of the earth, which wasn't created yet.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 12:22:47 AM
WTF? I just posted several things where five scientists give an explanation of it, without the need of miracles, and their explanation has been observed elsewhere, so they know this happens.

You mean THIS: "[b]it appears that the diatoms were not only gently settling out of the water column, but were also being advected and redeposited by currents resulting from tides and/or storms. A three-day storm along the Oregon coast formed a modern deposit of diatoms that was 10-15 cm thick and 32 km long[/b]” : says there is no possible way that a worldwide flood 4400 years ago?  All that they said is IT HAPPENS ... (of course I won't bother with the name-calling, or other choice adjectives, although you have clearly earned them on this CUT and PASTE)

Oh, the flood is a MIRACLE, there is NO GOD...oh,I see; how could I be so STUPID!!!

You OWNED me, Xerxes; now I bow my head in shame ... shall I come to Monroe for a public humiliation?

Make your point without a video. I don't watch your videos. Anyone can post videos all day and not know a damn thing

oooohhhh!!!! Tough guy ... follows up the WTF with the use of the word "damn" to emphasize his assertion that I am stupid because I have watched videos regarding creation science. 

AWESOME win for you Xerxes...just remember....it's not you and me ALONE on here; I think some others WATCH the videos...BTW, can anyone CUT and PASTE too, without READING FIRST what they CUT and PASTED; like when you went for the ONE polystrate Whale in California that was TOTALLY UNRELATED to the 346 buried in diatomeceous earth in/near Peru that I originally posted?

I think that FLOOD THEORY - either Hovind's canopy theory or Walt Brown's hydroplate theory that SUPPORT the Bible account of how God judged His creation, MIGHT JUST POSSIBLY explain how them whales and menegerie of other animals got buried in diatomeceous earth.

Ya know, that Bible is LITERATURE; it's been around for a LONG time - it even might contain an EYEWITNESS accounting of things that ACTUALLY HAPPENED here on Earth - it didn't show up by a MIRACLE within the last few years...but of course YOU KNOW where it came from, who is behind it, and how one day nobody will ever read/believe what is in it's pages again when mankind EVOLVES into superhuman understanding(and rids the Earth of the dumb scum who preach morality and salvation, like me) ;D

I'll give it to you, that I did address the wrong polystrate whale the first time. But nevertheless, the 346 whale argument has been refuted. Nothing wrong with copying and pasting a few words from scientists/experts themselves. Just another weapon in my arsenal to refute creationists.

Again, Science doesn't read miracles from any faiths into the natural world, and everything makes sense in light of naturalistic explanations. You're reading a flood into this account of the 346 whales, but geologists answer such things with plausible naturalistic explanations, not miraculous floods. Also, their ideas become more plausible if the same sort of explanation can be observed elsewhere.

If you wanna read an elephant in the cloud here, do so, but don't expect scientists to interpret the world in light of your bible. Nature doesn't work in relation to that book, sorry.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 12:23:53 AM
The bible says God created everything in six days. A day could have been millions or billions of years. Twenty four-hour days are centered around the spinning of the earth, which wasn't created yet.

Or it could just be an ancient myth, like all the other ancient creation myths that don't line up with science.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 01:41:22 AM
the 346 whale argument has been refuted - no it hasn't.

All you have established by "cut and paste" is that those guys AGREE that a rapid burial occurred, and that diatomeceous earth containing fossils can get sloshed around in stormy weather.

Where's the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that a compression event during a worldwide flood did not bury those "346 whale fossils…and a menagerie of other creatures—sharks, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, and penguins" 4400 years ago at coordinates 14°52'11.34"S, 74°50'06.18"W ?

All I, and everyone else reading our exchanges, is getting out of you is "miracles never happened" because nobody sees them today, and you dropped your faith - and - there is no God behind anything scientific we observe today because people who believe in Santa are delusional ...YET Hovind and countless others have tons of materials that point directly to the complexities of various life forms, that HEAVILY FAVOR the idea that Creator God created; and Christians especially ought to take Him at His Word if they are going to call themselves Christians - meaning - if He said He did it in 6 literal 24 hour days, approximately 6,000 years ago; and flooded His creation 4400 years ago - Christians ought to believe that, or, admit they want a god they can mold and shape to fit their belief system of millions of years for days, all sorts of tolerance for sin, and no expectation of future judgement upon anyone.

Seems to me you DON'T HAVE ANY scientific proof them whales weren't buried in the flood of the Bible ... seems to me that your boastful "WTF's" and strong rebuking assertion that people who post videos "don't know a damn thing" comments make you into this guy:(http://s5.postimage.org/sedebte4n/xerxes_logic_jpg.jpg)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Baggins on July 27, 2012, 03:10:13 AM
The bible says God created everything in six days. A day could have been millions or billions of years. Twenty four-hour days are centered around the spinning of the earth, which wasn't created yet.


Now this is the crux of the biscuit...Does the bible start with the beginning of the Earth it's self or the creation of the sun(let there be light)...?  Can any of you answer me this?   How long did that take?  Do any of you think in the scope of GOD...?  A minute, a second, an hour or year...we base our concept of time with that of the revolution of our planet around the Sun.  We think in small terms...VERY SMALL!!!

Thank you tiny for bringing that to the true discussion...
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 27, 2012, 07:57:40 AM
the 346 whale argument has been refuted - no it hasn't.

All you have established by "cut and paste" is that those guys AGREE that a rapid burial occurred, and that diatomeceous earth containing fossils can get sloshed around in stormy weather.

Where's the SCIENTIFIC PROOF that a compression event during a worldwide flood did not bury those "346 whale fossils…and a menagerie of other creatures—sharks, turtles, seals, porpoises, ground sloths, and penguins" 4400 years ago at coordinates 14°52'11.34"S, 74°50'06.18"W ?

All I, and everyone else reading our exchanges, is getting out of you is "miracles never happened" because nobody sees them today, and you dropped your faith - and - there is no God behind anything scientific we observe today because people who believe in Santa are delusional ...YET Hovind and countless others have tons of materials that point directly to the complexities of various life forms, that HEAVILY FAVOR the idea that Creator God created; and Christians especially ought to take Him at His Word if they are going to call themselves Christians - meaning - if He said He did it in 6 literal 24 hour days, approximately 6,000 years ago; and flooded His creation 4400 years ago - Christians ought to believe that, or, admit they want a god they can mold and shape to fit their belief system of millions of years for days, all sorts of tolerance for sin, and no expectation of future judgement upon anyone.

Seems to me you DON'T HAVE ANY scientific proof them whales weren't buried in the flood of the Bible ... seems to me that your boastful "WTF's" and strong rebuking assertion that people who post videos "don't know a damn thing" comments make you into this guy:([url]http://s5.postimage.org/sedebte4n/xerxes_logic_jpg.jpg[/url])


First of all I have to get this off my chest... 

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23122597.jpg)
Second, I finally got to reading Hovind's "dissertation" last night.  It's so full of logical fallacies and leaps in logic it made me cry a little.  I could have written that paper as a 7th grader and it would have made more sense.

Third, logical debate and science does not allow for miracles.  You keep citing Hovind as your source, but that man has never put together a logical arugment that could stand any water test.  The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no evidence for a world wide flood.  If there were, we would see it in all the geology records because it would have been such a catastrophic event.  The event that you speak of was a localized event and therefore not caused by a WORLDWIDE flood.

You refuse to believe the truth because your faith doesn't allow you to see past a text that was written, edited, and had texts taken out of it over centuries.  I don't really feel sorry for you Less, I feel sorry for your children.  I can only hope they will eventually see the truth for what it is and escape your cultish ways.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 27, 2012, 08:44:38 AM
Something placed sea fossils on mountains.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: BigRedDog on July 27, 2012, 08:51:43 AM
Something placed sea fossils on mountains.

Have you ever studied geology?

The plates in the earth move and collide and push on each other and in some cases they heave up into mountains...   and at one time some of those mountains were sea beds and therefore sea fossils can end up in the mountains?

or maybe not :o :o :o
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 09:27:02 AM
To start: let's get one thing straight - Xerxes is engaged in this HUGE battle to call Christians dumb/delusional - and make them feel ignorant for his own childish pleasure.

I come along, as ONE individual who has decided to stake my flag on the belief that because I asked Christ to pay my sin debt, I am forgiven, and when I die my soul will not spend eternity in a place of torment.

Sensing that I spiritually did "come alive" upon repentance and faith; through attending a fundamental, separated, independent Baptist church; I was introduced to Kent Hovind BEFORE the IRS went after him, David Barton form Wallbuilders, John MacArthur, and then a whole host of other teachers consistent with my WORLDVIEW(which is NOT unpopular).

I am NOT trying to convert anyone - I am only here answering Xerxes direct assaults and insults of believers because he is behaving like a preying vermin - so let me be clear so everyone understands if my language is terse or abrasive towards him and his attitude, do NOT use that as an excuse NOT to believe.

He likes to point out that guys like me, who can go toe-to-toe with him as he mocks/ridicules believers, are a GOOD REASON to dismiss Christianity out of hand ... and that is, well .... just an Ad Hominem  ;D   

For Baggins, the Bible says God made the Earth, then the Sun; the evolution theory teaches the polar opposite.  Both the creation theory and the evolution theory are polar opposites of each other - either way - they are the only TWO theories dominating most of the debate on this planet with respect to ORIGINS; and, the BOTH must be believed by FAITH, since nobody was here to witness either account(although we fundamentalists will say the Bible is God's eyewitness account); BUT, there is scientific evidence for a young earth, and Hovind has not only debated nearly 100 university professors/other known skeptics/evolutionists - but also - THEISTIC evolutionists like Dr. Hugh Ross and others who think a "day" in the Bible could be spans of time such as millions of years.

ALL of his material is on the internet/so is all the material of his mockers; but when you watch the mocking attitude of most of these Christian-bashers, and those who dwell on the fact that the IRS shut him down - his plausible SCIENTIFIC explanations/evidence(like petrified trees standing up through multiple rock layers that are supposed to be millions of years different in ages) gets thrown out the window.

I encourage anyone to take in BOTH sides, and in the end it seems to me thus far that Christians ought to take God at His Word that He did it in 6 literal 24 hour days, about 6,000 years ago; and He flooded the Earth about 4400 years ago in an act of judgment.

There is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that this very well may be the case ... and since it is primarily a FAITH matter ... Christians can choose to believe it happened the way God said it did, or, they can dismiss the bible as hogwash(which most people ONLY do because they don't like it's moral point of view since it calls out their sinful behavior and attitudes like a mirror as not beneficial, ungrateful for LIFE, and disrespectful to the Creator)

I am not a pastor, I am not a church; I am just one guy answering Xerxes ridicule. 
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 27, 2012, 09:36:13 AM
Have you ever studied geology?

The plates in the earth move and collide and push on each other and in some cases they heave up into mountains...   and at one time some of those mountains were sea beds and therefore sea fossils can end up in the mountains?

or maybe not :o :o :o
So they was underwater at one point. Hmm.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 27, 2012, 09:39:12 AM
What about them there uprooted trees that rerooted and eventually fossilized (found all over the world)?

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 27, 2012, 09:41:49 AM
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support a young earth.  All of Hovinds claims have been debunked by sound science.  In addition, evolution does not require faith.  The science clearly shows the evolutionary process.  I find it amusing that America is the only country in the world where this debate is so feverent.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 11:24:33 AM
Less, I just went over your last two posts and you said absolutely nothing. What does 95% of that have to do with the price of tea in china? How about you answer all the evidences for evolution I've posted in this thread. You've not ONCE addressed atavisms, vestiges, the geographical distribution of species and comparative drift, the fossil distribution and comparative homology, ERV's, etc., etc., etc.

All you do is talk about tax payers and call people mockers. I rebutted your 346 whale nonsense with the words of five credible scientists, even showing which universities they are from. But a plausible naturalistic explanation was not good enough for you. You'd rather read elephants in the clouds, because it supports a book that says millions of species were shut up in a boat for over a year, which alone runs into countless absurd problems, such as the problem of waste, the problem of food, etc., etc. Oh, wait... I forgot... It was MIRACLES.

Now, Less, you've dribbled on for long enough. You don't go toe-to-toe with me. You're not a contender. You're truly a joke, until you provide a substantial argument and address all my evidences. Answer vestiges and living transitions, or one of the other dozen evidences I've presented.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 12:20:32 PM
We are still waiting for a better than 50/50 chance that those 346 whales weren't rapidly buried in a worldwide flood...all your guys said were that the AGREE with the HOW...

Believing that Noah's flood is a myth is not Scientific PROOF.

Don't tear me down and insult the 15 year high school science teacher Hovind, John MacArthur, Princeton graduates who Studied paleontology while there, mechanical engineers who graduated West Point, or myself who likes their material as delusional or ignorant.

The scientific evidence is THERE that makes my Worldview, OUR side's worldview a strong possibility...all you have is bias and INSULTS against Christians.

Forsythia, we debate this in America not because we are STUPID and less Evolved believing in some mythical God, but because we have FREEDOM of speech....go live in a Communist country or Islamic theocracy if you don't want to hear about Christ and the Bible ever again.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 12:31:19 PM
The scientific evidence is THERE that makes my Worldview, OUR side's worldview a strong possibility...all you have is bias and INSULTS against Christians.

I don't think it's even a possibility, let alone a strong one. But, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter when all is said and done. Perhaps, the sun will red dwarf, the seas will boil, and all will be forgotten. If you want to believe the world is 6,000 years old, etc., you go ahead and do that. But science isn't going to start interpreting the world in light of the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, the Sutras, the Tao, etc. They're going to interpret it in the light of naturalism and favor any plausible naturalistic explanation.

If your god reveals itself to me and says the Bible is true, then I have some serious questions for it, but I'm betting that doesn't happen. Anywhos...
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 27, 2012, 12:38:49 PM
The reason why we shouldn't be debating this is because there is no credible evidence for a young earth.  Xerxes has shot down every single claim you made.

If there was a world wide flood explain how it happened and why theres no evidence for it in the geologic table.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 01:12:01 PM
.....now class, as an aside, let me interject that Xerxes NEXT move is to try to get my goat so bad that I call him some derogatory name; supposedly that destroys my credibility....

He and I are pulling and posting other people's research, data, and explanations/theories/conclusions that are not 100% slam dunk proof of one side or the other...

This debate will NEVER end until God ends it...so, I will take my risk that I am going to Heaven when I die; and others who I irritate by explaining and exposing their motives and non-solidifying "arguments" as whiney God-denying temper tantrums to dethrone the NEVER disproven idea that HUMAN BEINGS have a MORAL accountability to a Creator can continue taking the RISK that foolishly believes evil will never be judged.

Xerxes had ONLY blanket insults and ridicule, and avoidance when cornered with scientific evidence that FAVORS the creation theory and the flood...Forsythia has now joined in with similar "throw the baby out with the bathwater". "all or nothing" rhetoric, which is meant to be insulting.

Hovind's video the Age of the Earth is replete with examples of textbooks, people in "authority" lying and propagandizing young impressionable minds with the RELIGIOUS theory of evolution...and it is mostly tax-payer funded...all Hovind ever did, and succeeded at, is exposing this gigantic ruse for what it is; a plan hatched of Satan to get people to disbelieve the Bible through the same 3 things he did to Eve in the garden, and what he did to Jesus in the wilderness....get people to doubt God's Word, deny God's Word, and tempt/distract them through encouraging them to pursue the temporal/pleasureable/materialistic things of this world which will not last for eternity...we can certainly enjoy them, God is not against that; but the accumulation and storage and vain worship(serving them) is a vanity that can rob mankind of TRUE happiness, and an abundant life.

God is the author of human life, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding....what you do with what He gives you in those specific areas is our FREE CHOICE...and to me, there are two paths of stewardship we can choose; willing service in gratitude to our Creator, or, open selfish rebellion against Him for temporary, fleeting, and unsustainable pleasure that ends in uncertainty.

Now, back to the "debate"...
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 27, 2012, 01:21:23 PM
All Hovind did was get tried and convicted for tax evasion.  All of his so called proofs have been totally refuted by sound science.  We have refuted all your proofs by that same sound science.  Believe what you want Less but don't say you are correct when you have nothing to back up your claims.  All you do is duck and weave the actual pointed questions to you.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 01:55:10 PM
I've offered a rebuttal to all problems presented me.


Now, I'd like these evidences I've presented countered with intelligent explanations in the light of creationism.


Atavisms:

An atavism is produced by a mutation in a fossil-gene, which reactivates a feature that was deactivated through past mutations.


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/vxV63.jpg)

Back legs on a dolphin, which have bone structures of mammalian legs. Produced by a fossil-gene.

Teeth in a modern chicken. Produced by a fossil-gene.

Common ancestry makes sense of this, creationism doesn't.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/QJjG.jpg)

Another atavism activated upon a mutation in a fossil-gene.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/YH59G.jpg)

Back legs on a snake. Again, another atavism produced by a mutation in a fossil-gene, which reactivates something that was deactivated through past mutations.


Vestiges:


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/4SMDq.gif)


Vestigial bones of past legs on a whale. Left overs like this are common ALL throughout nature. I could give many more examples.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/RIaDd.jpg)

Vestigial hind leg of a python.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/TQNI9.jpg)

Small useless wings. They are a vestige. Many insects have wings they cannot use. What makes sense of this, creationism or evolution?

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/Y8UVA.jpg)

Again, those nice flightless wings of the cormorant that I explained in a past post.


Fossils:


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/oOwXI.jpg)

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/l0d4C.jpg)

Feathered dinosaurs. Remember, you will NEVER find a modern turkey or chicken where you find these in the fossil record (Jurassic). Look at the anatomy of the modern turkey, below.

Notice the epidepixteryx and archaeopteryx have teeth, like most feathered dinosaurs from that time. Sometimes modern chickens are born with teeth. Why is that? They have a gene for teeth and a simple mutation can reactivate what natural selection switched off. It's a fossil-gene that can mutate and produce an *atavism*. This is another strong evidence of common ancestry.

Notice how most feathered dinosaurs have fingers and claws. Then look at the dissected wing of a modern turkey, they have a finger with a small claw! Why a claw and finger under the wing? The claw is a vestige. They are clearly transitions from earlier forms! Modern birds also have reptilian like scales on their legs, like that of dinosaurs, as feathers, scales, and hair are made from the same gene; and made of ceratin. Also, modern birds and feathered dinosaurs have pneumatic bones. Compare the feet of the two!

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/ax3po.gif)

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/wSlHQ.jpg)

Scientists predicted that if evolution is true you should find the water to land transition in the Devonian. What did they find? Exactly that! Tiktaalik above. A clear transition from water to land. You DO NOT find modern frogs, etc., in the Devonian.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/6rJvx.jpg)

Oldest fossil is on the right, next the middle, next is the most recent. Look at the gradual shift of the blowhole on whales and their ancestors. Clearly transitions. And the you DO NOT find the older ones alive anymore, nor do you find the modern whale fossilized with them in the record.


Geographical Distribution of Species & Genetic Drift:

Cormorant of Michigan:

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/10c2k.jpg)

Galapagos Flightless Cormorant:

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/8PeBj.jpg)


Remember these? Let me restate myself, being some missed it...

The Galapagos Islands, like many Islands, arose from volcanic activity. They date, roughly, five million years old, at the oldest. When volcanic magma cools it creates igneous rock. Within this igneous rock are crystals with radioactive isotopes of potassium-40, which decay at a constant rate into argon-40. When the rocks first cool there isn't any argon-40, only potassium-40; therefore, the rocks are zeroed in. When the rock cools, the timer starts!

When they look at the ratio of potassium-40 and argon-40, in relation to the constant decay rate, they can accurately tell you how old those igneous rocks are. Some creationists say water can affect this, but that's not true, as water would not wash the isotopes out of the inside of crystals.



The cormorants, as you see here in Michigan, fly to South America every year, and then return to North America. A few million years ago, a group of cormorants went off course and found themselves on the Galapagos Islands. It's always warm and there is plenty of food, so they remained on these Islands. They no longer needed to drive, as cormorants are divers, so they swam around the shore lines eating the many fish that swim the shores.

Being they no longer need to fly to survive, natural selection is weeding the wing out. The energy used to preserve the wing is going into their feet, etc., to make them better swimmers. And something interesting is the standard cormorants, being divers, dry their wings in the wind, as seen in the pictures, for it's hard to fly with heavy wings. The flightless cormorant can no longer fly, but they dry their wings in the wind, as if they can fly. It's a *Vestigial Behavior*. What makes sense of this? Evolution.

You find in a few million years, due to genetic drift and natural selection, the difference between the standard and flightless cormorant. If such changes happen within a few million years, what would happen of 50 million years of drifting, 100 million years? Also, if you factor in extinction and the wild branching within drifting, you see speciation through natural selection making perfect sense, and the mathematics work just fine.


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/gkrSt.png)

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/GCgXQ.jpg)

Lemurs. Only found on Madagascar. What makes more sense, that genetic drift (evolution) did this, or that 4,000 years ago, some god magically teleported the flightless cormorant across the ocean to this Island. He, also, teleported the lemurs to Madagascar to make it look like evolution by genetic drift is true; as he did with the marsupials of Australia?

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/JRN2t.jpg)

Difference between tortoises on the Galapagos, drifting apart from island to island.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/mV0d9.jpg)

Notice the geographical distribution of these. These little guys can breed with each other county to county, but the northern most one (oregonesis) cannot breed with the most southern one (klauberi). Again, county to county they can breed up the spectrum, but the most southern and northern cannot. This shows speciation over the spectrum.


Endogenous Retroviruses:


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/fVZ16.jpg)


ERV's invade the host cell and merge in the DNA of the host, thereby tricking the host into replicating the RNA information of the virus. These viruses leave a mark in the genome. We have, roughly, 22,000 genes. These can attack anywhere in the 22,000!

So, what if you compare the human and chimpanzee genome and find 1 identical placement side by side with the chimp's? Maybe it's a huge coincidence. But what about 2? That's like winning the lottery. But what about 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc., etc... It becomes IMPOSSIBLE without COMMON ANCESTRY.




I haven't even went into DNA yet, which is one of the strongest evidences. I haven't went into Lenski's work. Or the arguments from bad design, such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve. I could go on and on and on with evidences throughout nature.

As the biologist Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in all biology makes sense expect in the light of evolution." The world as we know it only makes sense in the light of evolution, NOT creationism. In relation to the real world the miracles of creationism just don't work.


But hey, some people still believe we walked with these 6,000 years ago. Lol...

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/11/pf8cX.jpg)



The Laryngeal Nerve - An argument against intelligent design.


The laryngeal nerve is a nerve from the brain to the vocal cords. It only needs to travel a few inches from the brain to the vocal cords, but it takes a strange detour under a valve of the heart, then back up to the vocal cords. You see this in all mammals, even the giraffe! This detour of twelve feet isn't needed! You expect to see such odd features, if modifications are being made on preexisting models (evolution), but not if things were created in perfect form, as creationists insist. Why travel feet when you only need to travel inches?

Again, evolution makes sense of this reality, whereas creationism does not.


(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/19/wybzM.png)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 02:55:31 PM
Hey, captain REPEAT, with all your pictures and evolutionists BEST meant to DAZZLE and DISTRACT from the fact you have NOT given the AGE of the 346 buried whales and others in diatomeceous earth!!!

You lose big boy....none of your stuff says God didn't create/start what your side is observing, even if they are Christians who think young earth creationist Christians have a MENTAL DISORDER!!!

Naturalism is an "ism", like humanism, atheism, or creationism.....you will not trap me in the walls of your rigid RELIGION that rules out the existence of a Creator....nice try, but I don't play by YOUR rules... ;D
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 27, 2012, 02:57:49 PM
Hey, captain REPEAT, with all your pictures and evolutionists BEST meant to DAZZLE and DISTRACT from the fact you have NOT given the AGE of the 346 buried whales and others in diatomeceous earth!!!

You lose big boy....none of your stuff says God didn't create/start what your side is observing, even if they are Christians who think young earth creationist Christians have a MENTAL DISORDER!!!

Naturalism is an "ism", like humanism, atheism, or creationism.....you will not trap me in the walls of y

He repeated it because you didn't refute any of that to begin with and he was trying to get you back on topic.  Your use of distraction isn't fooling anyone....
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 03:07:25 PM
I demand he refute the 346 whales were not buried 4400 years ago in a worldwide flood...he said he would refute that nonsense(provided by a mechanical engineer and West Point graduate who doesn't know much theology)...

He hasn't refuted the WHEN or HOW at all....and we're waiting...not going back to his stuff from months ago before I took a long sabatical.

BTW, if my MEME was so bad, why would you copy and repost it?  Seems your image was good enough...
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 03:14:11 PM
Hey, captain REPEAT, with all your pictures and evolutionists BEST meant to DAZZLE and DISTRACT from the fact you have NOT given the AGE of the 346 buried whales and others in diatomeceous earth!!!

I haven't found any resources on the age of the whales themselves. BUT I did provide an explanation of the rapid burial and the distribution of diatoms according to experts in Geoscience. And that is enough to accept a plausible naturalistic explanation over the miraculous one.

Go ahead and give yourself a point on this one, as you already have.


Now, address the evidences I've put forth and make sense of them in the light of creationism. I would have never abandoned creationism if I heard a plausible and reasonable explanation of these evidences in light of creationism.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 27, 2012, 03:48:23 PM
I demand he refute the 346 whales were not buried 4400 years ago in a worldwide flood...he said he would refute that nonsense(provided by a mechanical engineer and West Point graduate who doesn't know much theology)...

He hasn't refuted the WHEN or HOW at all....and we're waiting...not going back to his stuff from months ago before I took a long sabatical.

BTW, if my MEME was so bad, why would you copy and repost it?  Seems your image was good enough...

I'll refute it for you.  If there was a worldwide flood 4400 years ago there wpuld be evidence of it elsewhere in the geologic table.   Not to mention the fact that the conditions to create such an event are impossible.

As for the meme thing, you don't know your internets.  I will gladly give you the website where all memes originate.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 03:57:02 PM
Forsythia, that's what creationists do, as you're well aware.

They find one so-called evidence and exploit the hell out of it with an argument from ignorance. Even if three cases in the world made sense by appealing to a global flood, it won't stand if thirty-thousand more cases dispute a global flood. You look for naturalistic explanations that harmonize the three cases with the thirty-thousand.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 27, 2012, 04:03:05 PM
So, if as you say, some species became fixed or at their optimal (or whatever) and did not evolve over time, even with outside changes, and other things did, then why are there not records or fossils of beings that changed to another species and failed to be viable.  You know like a rabbit that had a climate change and became a totally different kind of mammal, or fish, or reptile? 

Wait, I can guess, “it was too long ago and we have to take it on faith.”
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 27, 2012, 04:07:52 PM
Because a species won't pop out another species.  It's evolution over a long scale.  You can even look at humans as still evolving.  Look at the height records from 200 years ago and you will see that the average height of a person is much shorter than they are now.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 04:09:11 PM
Don't discuss HOW creationists debate, Xerxes - you told EVERYONE here that you would refute the nonsense about the 346 whales and the "poison" I put in your well that they MAY HAVE been buried in Noah's flood ...

Now that I have you trapped in the "stay on topic" game, that you have thrown at me, I strongly assert that your credibility is at stake because you(via your cut and paste) has NOT refuted the POSSIBILITY that those 346 whales and other creatures were INDEED buried in the worldwide flood that is documented in the Bible.

C'mon, stay on topic and stop calling creationists people who "argue from IGNORANCE"; which is an all collective, blanket, stereotypical evolutionist INSULT and not scientific at all ... there were 346 whales and other creatures buried rapidly in diatomeceous earth in/near Peru, you SAID you were "about to refute my nonsense" before I "took my ball and went home" ... so I came back, and challenged you - you took the bait, and TRIED, but FAILED -

The questions are the AGE of THE EARTH, and whether or not there was a worldwide flood 440 years ago...so...WHEN were they buried???
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 27, 2012, 04:10:38 PM
But if you can't get a new species then how can we have so many completely different ones all from one cell sometime a billion years ago or whatever?  How did algae become a dog?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 04:15:36 PM
I don't want "a point" - I want you to KEEP YOUR WORD and carry out your threat to "refute the nonsense" ... if the door is OPEN at all for the possibility of a worldwide flood 4400 years ago, I guess the door is ALSO open that God created within the evolution timescale RELIGION you believe in; but I go with the "He doesn't need millions of years, death, suffering, and nasty mutations" because He made it PERFECT in six literal 24 days, and through Adam's sin, things began to decay, defect, and die.

God is STILL in there, creation or in the observations of COMPLEX "micro-evolution" life forms and HOW they work MIRACULOUSLY as they exhibit variations within the kinds; so - I'll take that point - God exists! ;D
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 27, 2012, 04:19:18 PM
We have refuted your nonsense.  the conditions for a worldwide flood 4400 years are impossible.  Not to mention the FACT that if there was a worldwide flood 4400 years ago there would be evidence somewhere in the geologic table besides one spot.

The burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 04:22:29 PM
Don't discuss HOW creationists debate, Xerxes - you told EVERYONE here that you would refute the nonsense about the 346 whales and the "poison" I put in your well that they MAY HAVE been buried in Noah's flood ...

Now that I have you trapped in the "stay on topic" game, that you have thrown at me, I strongly assert that your credibility is at stake because you(via your cut and paste) has NOT refuted the POSSIBILITY that those 346 whales and other creatures were INDEED buried in the worldwide flood that is documented in the Bible.

C'mon, stay on topic and stop calling creationists people who "argue from IGNORANCE"; which is an all collective, blanket, stereotypical evolutionist INSULT and not scientific at all ... there were 346 whales and other creatures buried rapidly in diatomeceous earth in/near Peru, you SAID you were "about to refute my nonsense" before I "took my ball and went home" ... so I came back, and challenged you - you took the bait, and TRIED, but FAILED -

The questions are the AGE of THE EARTH, and whether or not there was a worldwide flood 440 years ago...so...WHEN were they buried???

What aren't you getting? I've already explained that I didn't find any mention of the date of this rapid burial or the dates of the whales. Do you have scientific evidence it was 4400 years ago? If not, then shut the hell up or provide something. I have shown you that experts in geoscience have given a naturalistic explanation for the burial and distribution of diatoms.

Again:


Here's a scientific explanation of the burial of those whales, and it wasn't even in response to a global flood.

Anoxia or extensive diatom mats don’t seem to be adequate explanations for the unusual whale preservation or the lack of invertebrate scavengers and lack of bioturbation. The evidence for shallow water and high energy do not favor anoxia, and the sediment contains evidence of broken-up mats, but not intact series of mats. Several lines of evidence seem to allow the possibility that the Pisco Formation diatomaceous sediment accumulated more rapidly than commonly occurs today. For example, Pisco Formation diatom frustules do not show evidence of dissolution, perhaps because, in the relatively shallow water, they accumulated too rapidly to dissolve. Sedimentary structures also indicate tidal current action and storms, which could have acted to concentrate diatoms in the shallow bays along the Peruvian coast. The well-preserved whale carcasses seem to require rapid burial, within weeks to months for any given whale, to account for their preservation and articulation, including fossilization of some nonbony tissues. This necessity of rapid burial indicates that, at times in the past, diatom accumulation rates were much higher than those typical in modern oceans. This rapid accumulation was most likely predominantly the result of lateral advection of phytoplankton by currents and/or storms into shallow bays. The volume of phytoplankton available for advection was enhanced by abundant blooms offshore, as most diatom species represent environments with deeper   water than the bays in which they accumulated.

Source:

Quote
Leonard R. Brand - Department of Natural Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92350, USA

Raul Esperante Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California 92350, USA

Arthur V. Chadwick Biology Department, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas 76059, USA

Orlando Poma Porras & Merling Alomia - University of Peruana Union, Carretera Central, Lima, Peru

This argument by creationists was formulated from an article Geology, February 2004, and from Fossil Whale Preservation Implies High Diatom Accumulations Rate in the Miocene-Pliocene Pisco Formation of Peru,” Geological Society of America, Vol. 32, February 2004, pp. 165–168.

The writer of the article (Brand) added:

“These self-burial processes could have hastened carcass burial somewhat” (p. 168). But what caused the massive number of whales to die in the first place, and what caused the rapid burial? Brand and his colleagues postulated that “it appears that the diatoms were not only gently settling out of the water column, but were also being advected and redeposited by currents resulting from tides and/or storms. A three-day storm along the Oregon coast formed a modern deposit of diatoms that was 10-15 cm thick and 32 km long” (p. 168).


YOU are making the positive claim this happened 4400 years ago, so the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders to provide adequate scientific evidence for this.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 04:24:38 PM
We have refuted your nonsense.  the conditions for a worldwide flood 4400 years are impossible.  Not to mention the FACT that if there was a worldwide flood 4400 years ago there would be evidence somewhere in the geologic table besides one spot.

The burden of proof is on you.

Lol... You were typing this out as I was typing my response. He just doesn't get the burden of proof is upon him. It's like he's an idiot.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 04:35:13 PM
But if you can't get a new species then how can we have so many completely different ones all from one cell sometime a billion years ago or whatever?  How did algae become a dog?

Algae didn't become a dog.

When you have self replicating molecules they divide quickly, so you'll get high numbers quickly. Then the environment selects among these continually replicating molecules. And over billions of years they become more complex.

Once you get to the more complex and land animals you get genetic drift due to communities dividing and you get this very messy branching. Many lines go extinct, others continue on. From one line you get two or more species, etc.

Say you have a community of species (500 in number) that look like this:

@@-@@

This community of gets split apart due to environmental conditions, the search for food, etc... 300 go east, and 200 go west.

West: 300 @@-@@

East: 200 @@-@@

Some of these die and fossilize looking like this @@-@@

Now that this one community becomes two they drift apart through mutations being unique to the community and inherent in that one community alone through breeding.

100 years later:

East: 600 @@@-+@

West: 2000 @@-@@@

Now West 2000 divides into 3 groups or 500, 500, and 1000. Again, each group is cut off from the other and cannot pass on unique mutations to outside communities, but they accumulate in the isolated community itself.

200 years later:

West A: @@-@@@@

West B: ++@-@@@!

West C: @@-@@!!!

Some of West C dies and is fossilized, but none of West A or B does...

So goes the mess of evolution.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 27, 2012, 04:53:45 PM
Algae didn't become a dog.

When you have self replicating molecules they divide quickly, so you'll get high numbers quickly. Then the environment selects among these continually replicating molecules. And over billions of years they become more complex.


So if they replicate quickly then why can’t scientists see species change in a lab?

Quote
Once you get to the more complex and land animals you get genetic drift due to communities dividing and you get this very messy branching. Many lines go extinct, others continue on. From one line you get two or more species, etc.

What is your proof that molecules CAN get complex enough to shift to completely new species.  Where are the fossils of a mutated rabbit that failed to become a new species?  What about a bird mutation that failed?  Fish?  Anything?  If trial and error was used, as I think you are saying, many mutation and only some work, then why no evidence of failed tries?



Quote
Say you have a community of species (500 in number) that look like this:

@@-@@

This community of gets split apart due to environmental conditions, the search for food, etc... 300 go east, and 200 go west.

West: 300 @@-@@

East: 200 @@-@@

Some of these die and fossilize looking like this @@-@@

Now that this one community becomes two they drift apart through mutations being unique to the community and inherent in that one community alone through breeding.

100 years later:

East: 600 @@@-+@

West: 2000 @@-@@@

Now West 2000 divides into 3 groups or 500, 500, and 1000. Again, each group is cut off from the other and cannot pass on unique mutations to outside communities, but they accumulate in the isolated community itself.

200 years later:

West A: @@-@@@@

West B: ++@-@@@!

West C: @@-@@!!!

Some of West C dies and is fossilized, but none of West A or B does...

So goes the mess of evolution.

I am NOT asking about drift.  I can see and understand drift.  Forsythia used man becoming taller and yeah.  But, you are asking me to believe that drift can cause a complete new KIND of species.  I don’t see how a tree species can evolve over a billion years into a giraffe.  I can’t see how a water breathing fish can suddenly become an air breathing mammal.  If your hypothesis is correct then we should see failed mutations STILL and be able to see species change.  Why are the apes still apes and not mutating to become another human species?  Why are some things stable and unchanging for millions of years when your hypothesis says they should change?  What determines stabilized and won’t change?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 05:43:03 PM

So if they replicate quickly then why can’t scientists see species change in a lab?


Scientists have seen wonderful mutations in the lab. Richard Lenski's work at the University of Michigan State has shown amazing mutations and among E coli. But one to your point.

Are there cases of speciation that has been observed? Yes. Here's a few plants that have been observed to do so without hybridism. Stephanomeira malheurensis, Maize, Mimulus guttatus, etc.

When it comes to the speciation of bacteria, one has to remember that bacteria have very conserved DNA and they are single cell organisms, so negative DNA mutations will more than likely kill the bacteria. And unless the mutation is so beneficial its hard for new genotypes to become fixed in a  population.

So, looking at animal and insect species you need A LOT of time, and we cannot manipulate the same kind of pressures and time in the lab, so it's difficult to observe such things; and remember, the origin of species was published in 1859. We haven't had much time to observe species in nature under the light of evolution, but everything has lined up with it being a reality thus far.



Quote
What is your proof that molecules CAN get complex enough to shift to completely new species.  Where are the fossils of a mutated rabbit that failed to become a new species?  What about a bird mutation that failed?  Fish?  Anything?  If trial and error was used, as I think you are saying, many mutation and only some work, then why no evidence of failed tries?


There are plenty of evidences in the fossil record of species whose line died out. Many of the dinosaurs are an example. Many primates lines have went extinct over the last few hundred years. And plenty of evidence of lines that went on.


Quote
I am NOT asking about drift.  I can see and understand drift.  Forsythia used man becoming taller and yeah.  But, you are asking me to believe that drift can cause a complete new KIND of species.  I don’t see how a tree species can evolve over a billion years into a giraffe.  I can’t see how a water breathing fish can suddenly become an air breathing mammal.  If your hypothesis is correct then we should see failed mutations STILL and be able to see species change.  Why are the apes still apes and not mutating to become another human species?  Why are some things stable and unchanging for millions of years when your hypothesis says they should change?  What determines stabilized and won’t change?


A tree into a giraffe? That's not how evolution works. Do you have a child? Look at yourself in the mirror, then look at your wife, then look at the child. The difference between the child and its parents is the typical rate of evolution. It's small accumulating changes of MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years, within all this branching out through migration, etc. As I said, there were some more punctuated mutations in smaller communities, as we see on oceanic islands today. That's why you get those weird species on islands, as natural selection has the space, apart from gene flow, to select interesting and beneficial new mutations.

A fish didn't suddenly breathe air. Lol... They developed the ability to walk on forming legs and breathe air slowly over time, like the Handfish here that are developing legs, independently of that grand event that set all land animals on course.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/27/4uFCY.jpg)

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/27/VRiUy.jpg)

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/27/XEutK.jpg)






Also, this mudskipper is developing the ability, through natural selection, to breathe in and out of water.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/27/CF1Uz.jpg)

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/27/2GSxO.jpg)


Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 05:58:30 PM
Something else I should have mentioned, was these oceanic islands are volcanic and often date to just a few million years old (radiometric dating, which I can explain), and you find the exotic species on the islands are, in fact, different species compared to the nearest mainlands. So, from these you can see the differences in a few million years. Now, think about the accumulated changes over a 100 million years.

We consider the changes over a few million years more cosmological, whereas the changes over longer stretches become morphological.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 06:57:54 PM
the geologic table Is that the table of CIRCULAR REASONING they use to date the rocks by the fossils they find in them, and the fossils by the rock layer they find them in?

It's like he's an idiot.

You little kids wanna get into a name-calling session now?

346 whales were rapidly buried in diatomeceous earth by Peru.  You claim this is NOT evidence that they were buried in a worldwide flood 4400 years ago and you said you would refute that(nonsense) scientifically; Secondly, you routinely assert that there is no God that exists, nor one that could have caused a flood to happen.

You want me to concede you are right because I haven't PROVEN the flood, and you then carry on in an attempt to make yourself look smarter/more educated than me by DWARFING my single selected piece of evidence with innumerable pictures that depict a great many variations observed by mankind in the animal kingdom.

Just because Forsythia is in your corner egging you on - and you are BOTH hurling insults at me because I do believe that those 346 whales COULD HAVE been buried in a worldwide flood 4400 years ago(and that the hydroplate theory is valid, and evidence is found showing it[like them fossilized clams in the closed position on top of mountains] COULD HAVE happened) - you indirectly call me an "idiot"; which of course spills over to include Dr. John Whitcomb, Walt Brown, Kent Hovind, and John MacArthur - as well as all the Christians who absorb their materials and increase in their faith that God's Word is TRUE.

Pretty pictures, Xerxes - all of them; God's is and EXTREMELY talented author and creator, and wise, isn't He? 

How about them dating methods?  Those ones that ASSUME the geologic column that was made up in 1830 is TRUTH?

[NOTE: this video link below is for OTHER PEOPLE - not those who do not want to watch it]  ;D ;D ;D

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa8_1268775605 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa8_1268775605)

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 07:05:03 PM
Now, address the evidences I've presented in favor of evolution.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 27, 2012, 07:22:48 PM
So far, I am getting repeated statements about drift.  Yeah, a bird can evolve in a different habitat to be wingless or eat very different food.  Yeah, dogs become different colors or sizes or breeds but still are dogs. 

You have not demonstrated a major change from one KIND of species to another.  You tell me your theory does not work that way and only tiny changes over millions of years cause radical change from primordial ooze to heavily populated planet of water breathing fish, reptiles, mammals, trees, flowers, and insects.  All of those major KINDs of species supposedly happened in tiny steps, yet there is no showing of the steps. 

Where is the insect that started morphing to a new KIND of life one million years ago and is now that new kind of life?  Your theory has to be able to account for minor variations in all ages that create a totally new kind of being.  Yeah, I get it, you say your small term evidence says the long term might be right, but you can show nothing beyond mutation within a species. 

If changes happen over millions of years, as you say, then they should still be happening.  There should be big mistakes we can find of a change in a species that fails in our time.  Why is it that one did not start a million years ago and be all ready to give us a brand new kid of life now?

All you can give me is some small changes and SAY that “over billions of years those tiny changes made radical new kinds of life and well, it sorta stopped so we can’t see any happen now, just the tiny inter species changes.  But it happened... honest, I have faith in it...”

How are you different than those saying the Bible is real?  Many people, places and events in the Bible are historically verifiable; therefore it all has to be true.  You give no more evidence than they can show as verifiable, and expect the rest to be taken on faith.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 07:53:49 PM
So far, I am getting repeated statements about drift.  Yeah, a bird can evolve in a different habitat to be wingless or eat very different food.  Yeah, dogs become different colors or sizes or breeds but still are dogs. 

You have not demonstrated a major change from one KIND of species to another.  You tell me your theory does not work that way and only tiny changes over millions of years cause radical change from primordial ooze to heavily populated planet of water breathing fish, reptiles, mammals, trees, flowers, and insects.  All of those major KINDs of species supposedly happened in tiny steps, yet there is no showing of the steps. 


O My Science! Do people just ignore my posts and then say I didn't give examples?

Did you ignore my post about the standard and flightless cormorant, which then led into an example of modern chickens and turkeys in relation to feathered dinosaurs? If you didn't, go reread it.


Never mind. Here you go.

Read this carefully:

Examples that species are not immutable:

Michigan (North America): Cormorant


(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/10c2k.jpg)



Galapagos Islands (South America): Flightless Cormorant


(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/8PeBj.jpg)



The Galapagos Islands, like many Islands, arose from volcanic activity. They date, roughly, five million years old, at the oldest. When volcanic magma cools it creates igneous rock. Within this igneous rock are crystals with radioactive isotopes of potassium-40, which decay at a constant rate into argon-40. When the rocks first cool there isn't any argon-40, only potassium-40; therefore, the rocks are zeroed in. When the rock cools, the timer starts!

When they look at the ratio of potassium-40 and argon-40, in relation to the constant decay rate, they can accurately tell you how old those igneous rocks are. Some creationists say water can affect this, but that's not true, as water would not wash the isotopes out of the inside of crystals.



The cormorants, as you see here in Michigan, fly to South America every year, and then return to North America. A few million years ago, a group of cormorants went off course and found themselves on the Galapagos Islands. It's always warm and there is plenty of food, so they remained on these Islands. They no longer needed to drive, as cormorants are divers, so they swam around the shore lines eating the many fish that swim the shores.

Being they no longer need to fly to survive, natural selection is weeding the wing out. The energy used to preserve the wing is going into their feet, etc., to make them better swimmers. And something interesting is the standard cormorants, being divers, dry their wings in the wind, as seen in the pictures, for it's hard to fly with heavy wings. The flightless cormorant can no longer fly, but they dry their wings in the wind, as if they can fly. It's a *Vestigial Behavior*. What makes sense of this? Evolution.

You find in a few million years, due to genetic drift and natural selection, the difference between the standard and flightless cormorant. If such changes happen within a few million years, what would happen of 50 million years of drifting, 100 million years? Also, if you factor in extinction and the wild branching within drifting, you see speciation through natural selection making perfect sense, and the mathematics work just fine.

What makes more sense, that genetic drift (evolution) did this, or that 4,000 years ago, some god magically teleported the flightless cormorant across the ocean to this Island. He, also, teleported the lemurs to Madagascar to make it look like evolution by genetic drift is true; as he did with the marsupials of Australia?

And there are a TON of living transitions. Beatles that have wings but can't fly. Dew claws on dogs. I could go on and on about vestigial organs, limbs, and behaviors in nature. There is no "missing link," according to biologists, as *Everything* is a transitional form, even you!

Example of the accumulation of change over 100 million years compared to 4 million:

Look at a modern chicken or turkey in relation to a feathered dinosaur.


Epidepixteryx (Jurassic):


(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/l0d4C.jpg)


Turkey (Modern Times):


(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/ax3po.gif)


You will *never* find a modern turkey or chicken where you find these feathered dinosaurs. You know why? They never lived together. Modern birds descended from them.

Notice the epidepixteryx has teeth, like most feathered dinosaurs from that time. Sometimes modern chickens are born with teeth. Why is that? They have a gene for teeth and a simple mutation can reactivate what natural selection switched off. It's a fossil-gene that can mutate and produce an *atavism*. This is another strong evidence of common ancestry.

Notice how most feathered dinosaurs have fingers and claws. Then look at the dissected wing of a modern turkey, they have a finger with a small claw! Why a claw and finger under the wing? The claw is a vestige. They are clearly transitions from earlier forms! Modern birds also have reptilian like scales on their legs, like that of dinosaurs, as feathers, scales, and hair are made from the same gene; and made of ceratin. Also, modern birds and feathered dinosaurs have pneumatic bones. Compare the feet of the two! That's enough examples...


Quote
Where is the insect that started morphing to a new KIND of life one million years ago and is now that new kind of life?  Your theory has to be able to account for minor variations in all ages that create a totally new kind of being.  Yeah, I get it, you say your small term evidence says the long term might be right, but you can show nothing beyond mutation within a species. 


Read this carefully!

The reality behind fossilization - What you expect to find!

This is a good analogy at what the fossil record is like. Say a baby is born, and the parents take a picture of the baby everyday of its life until it's 60. If you compare pictures day to day, you don't see much difference. But if you compare a picture from 5 years old, and one from 30 years old, you can see how this being changed over time.

Now! Take all the pictures, bundle them together and throw them in a fire. Let them burn for a good 30 seconds, then put the fire out. Sort through the picture fragments. Out of the 20,000, or so, pictures you'll find a quarter of a picture of when the person was 5. A half of a picture of when they were 27. A whole picture of when they were 11. A 10th of when they were 43, etc., etc.

That's what the fossil record is like. There were BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of past forms, but very very  few fossilized. So, we have a fragmented history to sort through. There were plenty of humanoid like species, like Neanderthals, that died out. We happen to be the one, in the group of the family, that made it successfully.

And something to remember, is when they find past humanoid fossils the brain stem holes are in different places, showing a slow evolution, etc. You never find modern human structures among those ancestors of ours, they have different anatomies to a degree. Also, you never find modern turkeys and chickens with feathered dinosaurs. You never find humans fossils or dogs in the Permian, etc.

Once one has a firm understanding of natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, etc., it all comes together in perfect sense. And I already pointed out the evidence of ERV's in our genome compared to Chimpanzees, which only makes sense in light of common ancestry. I can provide myriad evidences in our DNA for common ancestry, if you like.

If one looks in the mirror then looks at their child, that's the rate in which evolution takes place. No child is ever exact to its parents, due to mutations in germ cells. These small accumulating changes over millions of years drive a species to slowly appear different over time. DNA stores changes; therefore, most changes are permanent, and things must be driven to ever change.


Quote
If changes happen over millions of years, as you say, then they should still be happening.  There should be big mistakes we can find of a change in a species that fails in our time.  Why is it that one did not start a million years ago and be all ready to give us a brand new kid of life now?


It is still happening! Why do you think the flightless cormorant is in transition, as everything else is? Why do you think we find vestiges? Everything is still breeding and mutating. Everything IS a transitional form, because our DNA is not immutable. And you do NOT expect to find a half duck/ half turtle. Species will appear to be complete species that worked in their environment the changes are subtle.

We can't get a brand new form of life over night.

Quote
All you can give me is some small changes and SAY that “over billions of years those tiny changes made radical new kinds of life and well, it sorta stopped so we can’t see any happen now, just the tiny inter species changes.  But it happened... honest, I have faith in it...”


I never said it stopped. When did I say that? I said SOME species, like humans at this time fall into an equilibrium where there's not much punctuation from pressures; but as was pointed out humans are taller than they were a few hundred years back and will continue to get taller until they reach an equilibrium on height.

There are many species in nature right now under pressures and they are changing more quickly than others. The peppered moths were a good example, the Italian Wall Lizards, etc., etc., etc...

Evolution has NOT stopped, but it does reach stable points until something punctuates it. Nevertheless, without a hard punctuation you would still get great change and speciation over time as species slowly co-evolve with their environments and in the arms race of prey and predators.


Quote
How are you different than those saying the Bible is real?  Many people, places and events in the Bible are historically verifiable; therefore it all has to be true.  You give no more evidence than they can show as verifiable, and expect the rest to be taken on faith.


WTF? Are you serious? Wow...


Listen to me good. ATAVISMS. VESTIGES (ORGAN, LIMBS, BEHAVIORS). ERV's. THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES. COMPARATIVE HOMOLOGY. COMPARATIVE ANATOMIES OF LIVING AND EXTINCT SPECIES. EMBROYOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. CYTOCHROME C. HUMAN CHROMOSOME 2 (CENTROMERES AND TELOMERES). THE FOSSIL RECORD. DEAD GENES. ETC. ETC. ETC.

Now, what does creationism have??? NOTHING.

Are people truly this dumb or are they playing?

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 08:03:02 PM
Here's another evidence for evolution, for those who don't purposely stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes.

The embryological development of species shows their history in fast forward, in a sense. Chickens grow a tail, like their ancestors had, but then it recedes back up, during development. Humans also produce a useless yoke sack early in development that is now useless, also, we grow a tail that recedes as well, showing hints of our ancestors traits. Our DNA unfolds showing features of the past, as we grow.

At about 5 months, or so, we grow a full coat of hair called lanugo, which we shed before birth. Our cousins, the chimpanzees grow this hair at the same time, but keep it. Why do we grow lanugo when it's a warm 98.6 degrees? There no need for it. You know why? Evolution. Embryological development shows us evolution in high speed as all this genetic accumulation of information unfolds in our formation.


Answer that in the light of creationism, if you can.


Sigh... PWN'in all day, Cuh.  8)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 08:13:04 PM
Now, address the evidences I've presented in favor of evolution

Pictures of birds, monkeys, cool looking fish, a lot of facial hair on a guy, an imprint of a fossil or a fossil itself, GIANT TEXT meant to demean my worldview even more, no refutation about dating methods as explained by Hovind, no refutation of the LIE known as the geologic column, and calling me "an idiot", and creationists "dumb" indirectly ... does that about sum up what you have posted?

Creation theory still works from what I see here - no transitional fossils, but tons of government-funded IMAGINATION - sure as heck NO EVIDENCE that man, language, speech evolved from the grunts and groans of animals either ... let me poison the well in the SAME MANNER by re-posting this handy video for the BENEFIT of others, that makes a darn good COMMON SENSE case that human speech DID NOT evolve(since we are all re-posting stuff) ...

REMEMBER CLASS: Broca's convolution  

Hovind Debate V Callahan 7 of 14(theistic Evolution) Animals.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNF-10TBQX0#)

Isn't that something how there is still EVIDENCE for both sides: yet I don't call people "idiots" ... isn't that something?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Tiny on July 27, 2012, 08:22:02 PM
I read once that Albert Einstein was always being pestered about whether he believed in God or not. Knowing that either way he would anger half the people, he always tried to avoid the answer. Once, when pressed he finally stated that if there is a God I believe he has no interaction with humans what-so-ever. He simply got the ball rolling and let whatever happens happen.

Sounds to me like God created the universe through the process of evolution.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 08:24:03 PM
Less, like I said I don't watch your videos, so I can't refute a point I didn't hear.

My last post on lanugo was posted from head knowledge of past books I've read. I take the time to become familiar with evidences for evolution, so I can explain them without videos. I could DROWN you in videos showing evidence for evolution. But that wouldn't be a discussion would it?


But here, I'll address a few arguments of Hovind's that I remember from the past.

Polonium Halos. Hovind says certain rocks have halos made of polonium which prove the earth is young. Gentry first put forth this argument.

Scientists have made it clear those halos could very well be uranium and are accepted as such, and Gentry CAN NOT demonstrate they are polonium, so he has no real argument.

I've already rebutted his polystrate trees and fossils.

Hovind says the atmosphere is not reached an equilibrium in relation to c-14; therefore, the world must be younger than 30,000 years.

Scientists point out that it has reached equilibrium many times and is then punctuated out of equilibrium.

Hovind's arguments against modern dating methods have been powerfully overthrown by scientists.


As Forsythia has said, check out TalkOrigins. That site also offers 29 evidences for MACRO-evolution. I haven't even used most of those evidences yet. I can present them later.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 08:27:48 PM

Sounds to me like God created the universe through the process of evolution.


Here's an alternative to that, which doesn't employ gods (Occam's Razor).

Here's a previous post I made:

Mathematician John Conway, came up with a simulation program, called Life, to mimic the random selection of laws within nature. - When I say “random” I don't mean it as some would think. All seemingly random events are dependent on a prior cause; therefore, nothing is purely random, as some think of random. I use the word “random” here to exclude the idea of thoughtfulness behind and within the processes of nature.

Again, Mathematician John Conway came up with a simulation program, called Life, to mimic the random selection of laws within nature. Within this game pixels, called cells, are used upon graph paper. These cells, or pixels, represent the matter within the universe, and the selected laws determine how matter cells interact with other matter cells.

Before the simulation is started one places random cells on the graph paper, which mimic the random matter produced at the inflation of the big bang; also, one selects random laws, which mimic the random laws selected at the big bang. In this case, we randomly select laws and matter before the simulation starts, but in nature the laws and matter would be been randomly produced in the moment of the big bang. When we start the simulation, it mimics the big bang.

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/vn0GK.gif)

For this example, I'll use the laws, or rules, selected by John Conway, which are:

1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbors dies, as if caused by under-population.
2. Any live cell with two or three live neighbors lives on to the next generation.
3. Any live cell with more than three live neighbors dies, as if by overcrowding.
4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbors becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/IoDc0.gif)

These are the laws Conway selected, but there are many combinations of laws that can be selected. In this picture we see Conway's laws represented by 2 and 3 being selected on “Survivals” and 3 being selected on “Births.” Each combination of randomly selected laws will produce different effects upon the play between laws and matter. - Notice at the bottom, it gives the option of selecting random rules, and sometimes Conway's will result from that random selection. Some combinations won't produce any working systems, whereas others, like Conway's, surprisingly produce machinery of fair complexity. - This mimics many big bangs, some of which produce working systems, according to their laws, and many others that cannot.

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/2oPs.jpg)

It just so happens that Conway's four laws can produce complexity. Here's some of the interesting systems which are produced once Conway's big bang is simulated by pressing “Start.”

Gliders

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/e5AQ.gif)

Here are gliders, which are quite common, and able to move across space, until other matter interrupts them.

Glider Breeder

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/VxBGo.gif)

Here's a system which remains stable and breeds gliders.

Pulsar

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/JgvZM.gif)

Here's a pulsar, which reminds me of a sun like system.

Large Breeder

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/ogzHq.gif)

Here's a large system of glider breeders.

These systems seem to be designed by intelligence and driven by purpose, but this play is merely obeying its inherent nature of laws. Someone may say, “But this simulation was intelligently designed.” Yes, but remember, it mimics the random setting of laws and distribution of matter at a big bang. - Someone else may ask, “For this to be random you may need many big bangs.” - Right. And just as there are billions of planets not in the right place for life, many universes may not have laws in the right place to bring about the potentiality for life.

Men have often believed because man can thoughtfully create complex systems, this universe must be a system created by thoughtful intelligence. But ask yourself questions, like, “If I had the ability to create complex systems, would I create billions of planets, which are not able to bear life?” I question if anyone would, and this may hint at there being billions of universes with laws not able to bring about life. This seems to put into question thoughtful design.

One may ask, “How does Darwinian evolution, in all its complexity, arise out of a universe without thoughtful design? Look at the inner workings of the cell, with all its complexity.” The cell is highly complex, from our views of complexity, but let's look at a system which arises out of Conway's simulation. Here you see a system which appears to have purpose and thoughtfully constructed, but it arose from simple random laws, which brought about complexity over time, from the simple to the complex.

Better example in video!

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/r2eYj.gif)

We observe within nature that all things arise from the simple and become complex over time. Our ability to thoughtfully reason came about over billions of years of evolution, from the simple to the complex. The ability to thoughtfully design seems to be a mechanism which arose out of billions of years of evolution. But some say a god thoughtfully designed this universe and has always had the ability to thoughtfully design things. This goes against our knowledge of how reality works. From our observation and testing we find systems arise from the simple and gain in complexity over time, even the complex ability to thoughtfully design.

Which makes more sense, an infinitely complex god that always was, or a simple source which grows into ever increasingly complex forms over time, according to its eternal nature? Something, according to our reasoning, must be eternal, religion says its a causeless complex being, science points to a causeless simple being.

This simple being that science points to would be the vacuum. The vacuum is an eternal sea of roaring energy, which fluctuates according to its nature. From this arises simple particles, called virtual particles; these particles pop into existence for a fraction of a second before they annihilate. They come into being in two parts, +1 positive energy and -1 negative energy, when these two parts come together they annihilate. They pop in and out of existence so quickly they are called virtual particles, as opposed to real particles.

Fluctuations within the vacuum can cause an inflation, which is a big bang. This inflation produces gravitational force, which keeps massive amounts of positive and negative energy apart, which keeps it from completely annihilating. Gravity is what causes the virtual to remain in existence long enough to be considered real. This is why you have something rather than nothing in a Universe that equals zero.

The complexity of the universe is amazing. But just because we don't understand all its workings, at this time, doesn't mean an invisible thoughtful designer is behind it. The more we learn, by science, the more we see there's no need to fill the gaps of our knowledge with a thoughtful designer; and the more we see how everything complex has a most simple origin.

It could be that an intelligent mind extracts from nature, according to its intelligence, and by this sees intelligence within the extraction, thereby tricking itself. Bound by its natural faculties it sees everything as in a mirror, seeing intelligence inwardly and outwardly; seeing thoughtful design even in the thoughtless processes of nature. To such a mind everything is intelligently designed, for our faculties of extraction are intelligent and shape our world within that intelligence; and by that intelligence we measure and quantify everything.


Here's a video I made that has more picture examples. It says the same thing as I posted, but with better picture examples. Forgive the altered accent.

Universe Without Design (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_PFKC-bnCc#)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 08:37:04 PM
Well, Tiny: if "...God created the universe through the process of evolution." and you personally believe there is a Creator, it is worth studying to know what KIND of God He is.

Based on what evolution theory TEACHES it's followers: the "god" of evolutionary processes is no "god" I would worship ...

Again, that's a personal choice; to study ABOUT God if you believe He exists and did create ... I just take issue with Xerxes childish "there is NO God, especially NO Christian God of the Bible, or Jesus that performed miracles on thei Earth and rose from the dead" position because that position is truly VOID of evidence and common sense based on simple observation that each human has a conscience, and the vast complexity in creation of plants, animals, and their relationships/dependencies to each other that we ALL see EVERYWHERE.

100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind Christian Creationist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8DDIe_2cHM#)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 08:41:26 PM
OK. Less won't address the evidences I present, so I'm done talking to this guy. He offers nothing and ignores every evidence I present. There's no sense in going back and forth with this guy anymore. This is why Richard Dawkins, a master of evolutionary biology, will not debate Creationists. It just frustrates him, and I can see why.

Less can sit in ignore until he gets a clue.

Anyways.

Here's 29 Evidences for Macro-Evolution, for those interested.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 27, 2012, 08:45:40 PM
O My Science! Do people just ignore my posts and then say I didn't give examples?

Did you ignore my post about the standard and flightless cormorant, which then led into an example of modern chickens and turkeys in relation to feathered dinosaurs? If you didn't, go reread it.


Never mind. Here you go.

Read this carefully:

Examples that species are not immutable:

Michigan (North America): Cormorant


([url]http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/10c2k.jpg[/url])



Galapagos Islands (South America): Flightless Cormorant


([url]http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/8PeBj.jpg[/url])



The Galapagos Islands, like many Islands, arose from volcanic activity. They date, roughly, five million years old, at the oldest. When volcanic magma cools it creates igneous rock. Within this igneous rock are crystals with radioactive isotopes of potassium-40, which decay at a constant rate into argon-40. When the rocks first cool there isn't any argon-40, only potassium-40; therefore, the rocks are zeroed in. When the rock cools, the timer starts!

When they look at the ratio of potassium-40 and argon-40, in relation to the constant decay rate, they can accurately tell you how old those igneous rocks are. Some creationists say water can affect this, but that's not true, as water would not wash the isotopes out of the inside of crystals.



The cormorants, as you see here in Michigan, fly to South America every year, and then return to North America. A few million years ago, a group of cormorants went off course and found themselves on the Galapagos Islands. It's always warm and there is plenty of food, so they remained on these Islands. They no longer needed to drive, as cormorants are divers, so they swam around the shore lines eating the many fish that swim the shores.

Being they no longer need to fly to survive, natural selection is weeding the wing out. The energy used to preserve the wing is going into their feet, etc., to make them better swimmers. And something interesting is the standard cormorants, being divers, dry their wings in the wind, as seen in the pictures, for it's hard to fly with heavy wings. The flightless cormorant can no longer fly, but they dry their wings in the wind, as if they can fly. It's a *Vestigial Behavior*. What makes sense of this? Evolution.

You find in a few million years, due to genetic drift and natural selection, the difference between the standard and flightless cormorant. If such changes happen within a few million years, what would happen of 50 million years of drifting, 100 million years? Also, if you factor in extinction and the wild branching within drifting, you see speciation through natural selection making perfect sense, and the mathematics work just fine.

What makes more sense, that genetic drift (evolution) did this, or that 4,000 years ago, some god magically teleported the flightless cormorant across the ocean to this Island. He, also, teleported the lemurs to Madagascar to make it look like evolution by genetic drift is true; as he did with the marsupials of Australia?

And there are a TON of living transitions. Beatles that have wings but can't fly. Dew claws on dogs. I could go on and on about vestigial organs, limbs, and behaviors in nature. There is no "missing link," according to biologists, as *Everything* is a transitional form, even you!

Example of the accumulation of change over 100 million years compared to 4 million:

Look at a modern chicken or turkey in relation to a feathered dinosaur.


Epidepixteryx (Jurassic):


([url]http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/l0d4C.jpg[/url])


Turkey (Modern Times):


([url]http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/06/04/ax3po.gif[/url])


You will *never* find a modern turkey or chicken where you find these feathered dinosaurs. You know why? They never lived together. Modern birds descended from them.

Notice the epidepixteryx has teeth, like most feathered dinosaurs from that time. Sometimes modern chickens are born with teeth. Why is that? They have a gene for teeth and a simple mutation can reactivate what natural selection switched off. It's a fossil-gene that can mutate and produce an *atavism*. This is another strong evidence of common ancestry.

Notice how most feathered dinosaurs have fingers and claws. Then look at the dissected wing of a modern turkey, they have a finger with a small claw! Why a claw and finger under the wing? The claw is a vestige. They are clearly transitions from earlier forms! Modern birds also have reptilian like scales on their legs, like that of dinosaurs, as feathers, scales, and hair are made from the same gene; and made of ceratin. Also, modern birds and feathered dinosaurs have pneumatic bones. Compare the feet of the two! That's enough examples...


Read this carefully!

The reality behind fossilization - What you expect to find!

This is a good analogy at what the fossil record is like. Say a baby is born, and the parents take a picture of the baby everyday of its life until it's 60. If you compare pictures day to day, you don't see much difference. But if you compare a picture from 5 years old, and one from 30 years old, you can see how this being changed over time.

Now! Take all the pictures, bundle them together and throw them in a fire. Let them burn for a good 30 seconds, then put the fire out. Sort through the picture fragments. Out of the 20,000, or so, pictures you'll find a quarter of a picture of when the person was 5. A half of a picture of when they were 27. A whole picture of when they were 11. A 10th of when they were 43, etc., etc.

That's what the fossil record is like. There were BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of past forms, but very very  few fossilized. So, we have a fragmented history to sort through. There were plenty of humanoid like species, like Neanderthals, that died out. We happen to be the one, in the group of the family, that made it successfully.

And something to remember, is when they find past humanoid fossils the brain stem holes are in different places, showing a slow evolution, etc. You never find modern human structures among those ancestors of ours, they have different anatomies to a degree. Also, you never find modern turkeys and chickens with feathered dinosaurs. You never find humans fossils or dogs in the Permian, etc.

Once one has a firm understanding of natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, etc., it all comes together in perfect sense. And I already pointed out the evidence of ERV's in our genome compared to Chimpanzees, which only makes sense in light of common ancestry. I can provide myriad evidences in our DNA for common ancestry, if you like.

If one looks in the mirror then looks at their child, that's the rate in which evolution takes place. No child is ever exact to its parents, due to mutations in germ cells. These small accumulating changes over millions of years drive a species to slowly appear different over time. DNA stores changes; therefore, most changes are permanent, and things must be driven to ever change.


It is still happening! Why do you think the flightless cormorant is in transition, as everything else is? Why do you think we find vestiges? Everything is still breeding and mutating. Everything IS a transitional form, because our DNA is not immutable. And you do NOT expect to find a half duck/ half turtle. Species will appear to be complete species that worked in their environment the changes are subtle.

We can't get a brand new form of life over night.

I never said it stopped. When did I say that? I said SOME species, like humans at this time fall into an equilibrium where there's not much punctuation from pressures; but as was pointed out humans are taller than they were a few hundred years back and will continue to get taller until they reach an equilibrium on height.

There are many species in nature right now under pressures and they are changing more quickly than others. The peppered moths were a good example, the Italian Wall Lizards, etc., etc., etc...

Evolution has NOT stopped, but it does reach stable points until something punctuates it. Nevertheless, without a hard punctuation you would still get great change and speciation over time as species slowly co-evolve with their environments and in the arms race of prey and predators.


WTF? Are you serious? Wow...


Listen to me good. ATAVISMS. VESTIGES (ORGAN, LIMBS, BEHAVIORS). ERV's. THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES. COMPARATIVE HOMOLOGY. COMPARATIVE ANATOMIES OF LIVING AND EXTINCT SPECIES. EMBROYOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. CYTOCHROME C. HUMAN CHROMOSOME 2 (CENTROMERES AND TELOMERES). THE FOSSIL RECORD. DEAD GENES. ETC. ETC. ETC.

Now, what does creationism have??? NOTHING.

Are people truly this dumb or are they playing?



Wow, someone sure is angry his pet ideas are flawed.  I have repeatedly (see  can use big fonts too) said that there IS evidence of inter-species drift, like your cormorant.  Cool, there was a dinosaur like a turkey and it is STILL just inter-species.

Just because you yell real loud with your words doesn't mean they are right! 

You HAVE NOT IN ANY WAY SHOWN A COMPLETELY NEW KIND OF LIFE LIKE THE CHANGE FROM AN ALGAE TO A WATER BREATHER OR A AIR BREATHER OR A MAMMAL OR A FISH OR A REPTILE...  You cannot show a tree becoming a toad or a fish becoming a wooley mammoth.  All you say is "evolution is tiny steps" and I am supposed to jump up and down and say yippee you made up a wonderful new story of BS.  You got nothing.  Tiny steps do NOT show changes of a water breather into a tree, no matter how many steps and billions of years it supposedly takes that I also have to take at YOUR word that it is so.

Again you describe some symptoms of what you claim but have nothing past that.  It is no different than the PROOFS that Bible believers can give.  You are completely asking me to take it on faith and your word that the tiny changes did major changes a zillion years ago, but nothing since.  All you can show for the present is still just genetic drift within a species. 

Now, when you can calm yourself over not having any explanation other than "believe me" you should try again.  But, please quit beating inter species drift to death.  i get it.  Do you even get new species change?  Why is it that you cannot conceive that something is at the end of it's billion year change and making a whole new kind of life in our time?  It should by your theory of change and all.  But, nothing.  Your theory claims that everything came from the same pile of sludge and mutated to become various forms of life, but I guess it all just happened long ago when no one can prove anything so "believe me it's true".

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 09:14:25 PM
Same old BS.

These people use the most fallacious logic under the sun. They demand what we cannot give them, yet we show exhaustive evidences that only make sense in light of evolution. They know we can't give them what they want, so they exploit that, and try to cram some god in the gap.

You show these guys feathered dinosaurs and explain you never find modern turkeys and chickens in such eras. Then you show them the comparative anatomies, and they say, oh, that was just a dino-bird god created, or some other absurd nonsense.

Then you show them something like Tiktaalik from the Devonian which is in transition from water to land, and you explain you never find modern species with Tiktaalik, and they make some other excuse how this isn't ample evidence.

Tiktaalik

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/27/KEIvM.jpg)

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/27/EkJrI.jpg)

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/27/9eaBD.gif)


I explained how fossilization is very rare and you're lucky to find something like a Tiktaalik that was predicted, and still, it's not ample evidence to one who doesn't want to see the evidence.

When just because we don't yet know everything about the origins of life doesn't mean a god did it. That's a God of Gaps argument, which is an Argument from Ignorance. Man has always put a god in gaps from orbits to lightning and thunder, but the more we know the more god is pushed out of the gap.


Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 09:41:40 PM
Anyways... I've posted enough evidence. My work in this thread is done.

I'll let it rest.  8)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 27, 2012, 10:40:21 PM
Duck there is no difference between micro and macro evolution.  Head over to talk origins.org and you shoulf have all questions answered.  They have an index to creationist claims that provides sources for questions against evolution.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 27, 2012, 10:46:22 PM
Same old BS.

These people use the most fallacious logic under the sun. They demand what we cannot give them, yet we show exhaustive evidences that only make sense in light of evolution. They know we can't give them what they want, so they exploit that, and try to cram some god in the gap.

Dude, you made the topic... “Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll”   You set what is talked about.  I DID NOT “cram god in the gap.”  You have a tiny idea and are trying to go backward and fill the gaps with complete made up stuff.  Your “exhaustive evidence” only is inter-species drift.  I make sense out of adaptation just fine, and have said so and you keep repeating the same tired stuff as if I am supposed to get what I already get.   You can’t give proper evidence because what you have is just a guess, an idea, and not fact.  You make the excuse that it was too long ago, yet at the same time claim it is still going on, some things stop changing and others keep changing and still nothing in recent enough time to sow ANY species change.


Quote
You show these guys feathered dinosaurs and explain you never find modern turkeys and chickens in such eras. Then you show them the comparative anatomies, and they say, oh, that was just a dino-bird god created, or some other absurd nonsense.

Then you show them something like Tiktaalik from the Devonian which is in transition from water to land, and you explain you never find modern species with Tiktaalik, and they make some other excuse how this isn't ample evidence.

Tiktaalik

X, instead of flying off the handle in anger because you can’t explain your guess, why not try logic?   Repeating the same dogma over and over is not making you right.  I have asked very serious and logical questions and unfortunately it is just making you angry and I am not getting any answers.

Quote
I explained how fossilization is very rare and you're lucky to find something like a Tiktaalik that was predicted, and still, it's not ample evidence to one who doesn't want to see the evidence.

When just because we don't yet know everything about the origins of life doesn't mean a god did it. That's a God of Gaps argument, which is an Argument from Ignorance. Man has always put a god in gaps from orbits to lightning and thunder, but the more we know the more god is pushed out of the gap.

Hold on there son, where did I say God did it?  You must have me confused.  I have been asking where your theory has any more proof than what those that believe the Bible have. It is easy to verify the historical existence of many in the Bible, as well as places and events.  That is quite similar to your drift theory.  You have a tiny proof that you are asking me to conflate to something with no proof.

David was a real King in a real country named in the Bible, does that make him have feathers and fly?  Just because you have faith and belief in a scientific theory doesn't not mean that it cancels someone else's idiom. 

Frankly, I think it was downright idiotic to name a topic with the exact premise that your theory automatically voids the contra argument.  It set up too many eggs in a basket to prove, and really is a veiled attempt to prove that God does not exist because you believe and have faith in your theory.

But, since you say you give up I will leave it at this.  Maybe next time I will take the other side. 
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 27, 2012, 10:49:52 PM
Duck there is no difference between micro and macro evolution.  Head over to talk origins.org and you shoulf have all questions answered.  They have an index to creationist claims that provides sources for questions against evolution.

Thanks, I might just do that, but x was trying to prove that God could not exist because his theory with holes voids the premise, and he failed.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 27, 2012, 11:02:49 PM
You call that work?
Posting pretty pictures of the same KIND of animals that God made, and telling people to use their imaginations to believe the evolutionists "millions of years" assumptions coupled with the accomplishments of others with an atheistic bias(and government funding) to swell your own intellect, while calling us names, and saying Dawkins is too GOOD to debate Hovind?

What a crock!

Your cut-and-paste, large text temper tantrum after you conceded that you cannot refute that those 346 whales MIGHT HAVE gotten buried in a worldwide flood 4400 years ago is quite a TELL.

You don't have to watch any videos I post; but linking to talk origins is no answer either.

Consider the well poisoned, and yourself a very small individual for openly bashing Christianity and anyone who believes in Creator - and the God of our founders.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 11:09:01 PM
Dude, you made the topic... “Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll”   You set what is talked about.  I DID NOT “cram god in the gap.”  You have a tiny idea and are trying to go backward and fill the gaps with complete made up stuff.  Your “exhaustive evidence” only is inter-species drift.  I make sense out of adaptation just fine, and have said so and you keep repeating the same tired stuff as if I am supposed to get what I already get.   You can’t give proper evidence because what you have is just a guess, an idea, and not fact.  You make the excuse that it was too long ago, yet at the same time claim it is still going on, some things stop changing and others keep changing and still nothing in recent enough time to sow ANY species change.

Duck, I find your posts terribly reasoned out. If you're going to demand inter-drift as reality but not common ancestry then explain reality in light of this interpretation.

Explain to me ERV's and their placement in the genome in relation to humans and chimpanzees, as I explained them, atavisms, and embryological development in the light of mere inter-drift among species.

I'll be waiting.


Quote
X, instead of flying off the handle in anger because you can’t explain your guess, why not try logic?   Repeating the same dogma over and over is not making you right.  I have asked very serious and logical questions and unfortunately it is just making you angry and I am not getting any answers.
Nice try. Won't work with me. I already checkmated you in the other thread on logic, and if you wanna play logic I'd be happy to checkmate you in this thread as well.

You're calling the evidences I presented mere dogma, without a valid explanation of the evidences I presented. You haven't used any scientific argument offering a real alternative in light of reality and the evidences presented. It's really a logical fallacy to do that, isn't it?


Quote
Hold on there son, where did I say God did it?  You must have me confused.  I have been asking where your theory has any more proof than what those that believe the Bible have. It is easy to verify the historical existence of many in the Bible, as well as places and events.  That is quite similar to your drift theory.  You have a tiny proof that you are asking me to conflate to something with no proof.

Again, nice try. It's not going to work with me. You know I'm too intelligent and see through your feeble attempts.

Now, address the myriad evidences I mentioned through all this thread. Address them and explain how they are better understood apart from common ancestry, and before you can answer them all, I'll have a dozen more evidences for you to answer.

Let's play.

Quote
David was a real King in a real country named in the Bible, does that make him have feathers and fly?  Just because you have faith and belief in a scientific theory doesn't not mean that it cancels someone else's idiom. 

Strawman Fallacy. *Check*


Quote
Frankly, I think it was downright idiotic to name a topic with the exact premise that your theory automatically voids the contra argument.  It set up too many eggs in a basket to prove, and really is a veiled attempt to prove that God does not exist because you believe and have faith in your theory.

But, since you say you give up I will leave it at this.  Maybe next time I will take the other side.

I never said absolutely that a god isn't behind it, but put forth *Occam's Razor*. Do you know what that is? You should being you've mentioned logic. I've merely used Occam's Razor to avoid a god of the gaps fallacy.

Think about it.


Now, answer all the evidences I've presented in light of this *inter-drift* only. Start with the ERV's. This will be fun playing with you.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Tiny on July 27, 2012, 11:10:55 PM
Panspermia
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 27, 2012, 11:11:35 PM
Panspermia

Sick.  :P
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 27, 2012, 11:52:53 PM
Duck, I find your posts terribly reasoned out.

Really, you didn't even try to answer yet.  Hmm. 

Quote
If you're going to demand inter-drift as reality but not common ancestry then explain reality in light of this interpretation.

Explain to me ERV's and their placement in the genome in relation to humans and chimpanzees, as I explained them, atavisms, and embryological development in the light of mere inter-drift among species.

I'll be waiting.

Hey, that’s funny...  Just today you told Less the idea he proposed was his, and he had to prove it, not you disprove it.  Yet, now you want to turn it upside down and have me prove YOUR little teory?  No thanks, it is your burden to prove, not mine.

Quote
Nice try. Won't work with me. I already checkmated you in the other thread on logic, and if you wanna play logic I'd be happy to checkmate you in this thread as well.

You're calling the evidences I presented mere dogma, without a valid explanation of the evidences I presented. You haven't used any scientific argument offering a real alternative in light of reality and the evidences presented. It's really a logical fallacy to do that, isn't it?

You ran off and tried switched to this topic where you felt you had a better chance and you still ain’t got it.

X, you keep repeatig the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.  AGAIN, I am not questioning natural selection drift.  That is all you toss at me over and over.  I do not have to give scientific validation to YOUR idiom, I am the one questioning your theory and so far I am not getting answers.  I have not once said that the topic oppositional proposal is scientifically valid and disproves yours because I don’t have to, therefore I have presented no logical fallacy as you accuse..  YOU say your theory negates the other, so it is your burden to prove.  I am simply asking valid scientific questions and you are completely avoiding answering any. 

Quote
Again, nice try. It's not going to work with me. You know I'm too intelligent and see through your feeble attempts. 

Please be specific about what you claim is my “feeble attempt”.
My response was direct to this statement...
Quote
When just because we don't yet know everything about the origins of life doesn't mean a god did it. That's a God of Gaps argument, which is an Argument from Ignorance. Man has always put a god in gaps from orbits to lightning and thunder, but the more we know the more god is pushed out of the gap.

That clearly makes the accusation that I said and tried to prove that creationism voids evolution and I did not at any time say that.  Please stick with what I DO say instead of making things up.

Quote
Now, address the myriad evidences I mentioned through all this thread. Address them and explain how they are better understood apart from common ancestry, and before you can answer them all, I'll have a dozen more evidences for you to answer.

Why are you trying to shift the burden of proving YOUR theory on me?  It is your theory, you prove it.  And please don’t repeat the same tired nonsense again.  Yeah, I have said the stuff you pound is in species drift, natural selection and all that.  But, you still refuse to answer MY questions.

Quote
Let's play.
Umm, I thought I was.


Quote
Strawman Fallacy. *Check*
  How in the world can it be straw man?  Pay attention.  I said that is what you are doing; you are giving a proof and saying that the rest is true because one tiny part is.  Clearly you would not accept the determination that the Bible is completely true because David was a verified historical figure in a verified historical place and some events in the Bible are historical events.  Likewise, your partial truth does not make your entire theory fact just because of the tiny part you repeat over and over.

Quote
I never said absolutely that a god isn't behind it, but put forth *Occam's Razor*. Do you know what that is? You should being you've mentioned logic. I've merely used Occam's Razor to avoid a god of the gaps fallacy.

Think about it.
 

Your question “Creationism vs. Evolution” is a clear either/or premise.  You can see that, right?  You are amusing though, you set up a topic to evacuate Creationism and want to play that you took god out of the equation.  Neat....


Quote
Now, answer all the evidences I've presented in light of this *inter-drift* only. Start with the ERV's. This will be fun playing with you.

Again, you can’t do what you claim and are trying to shift the burden of proof to me.  You made the claim; it is your burden to prove.  You might start by answering some of my questions instead of repeatign the same things over and over.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: ducksoup on July 27, 2012, 11:55:42 PM
Panspermia
Ohhh, that could be fun, can we do that one next?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 28, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
Really, you didn't even try to answer yet.  Hmm. 

Hey, that’s funny...  Just today you told Less the idea he proposed was his, and he had to prove it, not you disprove it.  Yet, now you want to turn it upside down and have me prove YOUR little teory?  No thanks, it is your burden to prove, not mine.

I've provided evidence that can only be made sense of in light of common ancestry.

Let me repeat this again. Man, you're just not getting it. Lol...

THIS is an evidence for common ancestry.

Endogenous Retroviruses:

ERV's invade the host cell and merge in the DNA of the host, thereby tricking the host into replicating the RNA information of the virus. These viruses leave a mark in the genome. We have, roughly, 22,000 genes. These can attack anywhere in the 22,000!

So, what if you compare the human and chimpanzee genome and find 1 identical placement side by side with the chimp's? Maybe it's a huge coincidence. But what about 2? That's like winning the lottery. But what about 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc., etc... It becomes IMPOSSIBLE without COMMON ANCESTRY.

NOW! Ducky, make sense of this in light of mere inter-drift.

Come on man. Stop weaseling around it and answer it, or look stupid.

Quote
You ran off and tried switched to this topic where you felt you had a better chance and you still ain’t got it.

*Edited to add: I just noticed you posted to me again in that other thread. I was unaware you double posted. I thought your last post was to FF. I'll go give it a look.


Quote
X, you keep repeatig the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.  AGAIN, I am not questioning natural selection drift.  That is all you toss at me over and over.  I do not have to give scientific validation to YOUR idiom, I am the one questioning your theory and so far I am not getting answers.  I have not once said that the topic oppositional proposal is scientifically valid and disproves yours because I don’t have to, therefore I have presented no logical fallacy as you accuse..  YOU say your theory negates the other, so it is your burden to prove.  I am simply asking valid scientific questions and you are completely avoiding answering any. 

Proof provided. Answer ERV's. Make sense of their placement in comparative genomes apart from common ancestry.


Quote
Please be specific about what you claim is my “feeble attempt”.
My response was direct to this statement...
That clearly makes the accusation that I said and tried to prove that creationism voids evolution and I did not at any time say that.  Please stick with what I DO say instead of making things up.

Your attempt to say common ancestry has as much evidence as the miraculous claims of the bible.


Quote
Why are you trying to shift the burden of proving YOUR theory on me?  It is your theory, you prove it.  And please don’t repeat the same tired nonsense again.  Yeah, I have said the stuff you pound is in species drift, natural selection and all that.  But, you still refuse to answer MY questions.
Umm, I thought I was.

Proofs have been given. NOW, explain lanugo apart from common ancestry. Then explain atavisms apart from common ancestry. Explain fossil genes that get switched back on by mutations and produce past traits of ancestors. Explain such things apart from common ancestry.

Come on. I'll be waiting.

Provide this coherent theory to explain these.

 
Quote
How in the world can it be straw man?  Pay attention.  I said that is what you are doing; you are giving a proof and saying that the rest is true because one tiny part is.  Clearly you would not accept the determination that the Bible is completely true because David was a verified historical figure in a verified historical place and some events in the Bible are historical events.  Likewise, your partial truth does not make your entire theory fact just because of the tiny part you repeat over and over.
 
Saying, "David was a real King in a real country named in the Bible, does that make him have feathers and fly?" Is a Strawman.

Listen. I'm providing examples of nature. You're not. I'm presenting things in nature that only make sense in light of common ancestry, like how you NEVER find modern species of turkeys in 150 million year old strata, or wolves in the Permian. EXPLAIN THAT.

Explain why you never find species of today fossilized with extinct Devonian fossils in Monroe even. Common ancestry can explain it.

Waiting for an explanation.

Quote
Your question “Creationism vs. Evolution” is a clear either/or premise.  You can see that, right?  You are amusing though, you set up a topic to evacuate Creationism and want to play that you took god out of the equation.  Neat....

Do I have to tell you again, I'm using Occam's Razor? I didn't absolute say no god was behind it, but showed it may not be necessary.

Now, provide a valid counter explanation, or evolution will walk all over your arguments from ignorance.


Quote
Again, you can’t do what you claim and are trying to shift the burden of proof to me.  You made the claim; it is your burden to prove.  You might start by answering some of my questions instead of repeatign the same things over and over.

Proof has been sufficiently provided.

Now, explain these evidences apart from common ancestry.

Explain the atavistic traits that come in go in the embryological development of species apart from common ancestry.

I'll be waiting.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 28, 2012, 03:12:50 AM
So, do you wanna die on this hill, Xerxes?

Your embedded high-quality drawing, derived from fossils of dead things that you do not know had any children; of the Eusthenopteron, that over a period of 10 million years, turned into the Tiktaalik; and 10 million years later, that became the Ichthyostega that began to walk on land?

And these fossils, found in a rock layer deemed the Devonian period of 345-405 million years ago, primarily in Canada or up north, also have the blueprint for the evolution of our radius/ulna and human fingers?

There is just no way that anything like these things Ichthyostegas filmed recently, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120523-tetrapod-walk-flopped-nature-science-ichthyostega/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/05/120523-tetrapod-walk-flopped-nature-science-ichthyostega/) ; could have lived, been LARGER, and died/been buried in a worldwide flood 4400 years ago BECAUSE the geologic column is a FACT, right? 

let's poison the well some more with this link: MAYBE that Devonian era was early-post flood - MAYBE ...
http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/geologiccolumn.htm (http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/geologiccolumn.htm)

Is there also no way they weren't just separate, distinct, different God-made creatures that were not descendents of one another; that all got buried in the same flood event because those who took the liberty to spend government money to put flesh and scales and fins on the re-creations fossils(and color them, and draw "Artist's impression of an Ichthyostega" for a WOW display at a publicly funded museum, government purchased textbook) say so?

hmmmm....so tough...have FAITH that Humans evolved from fish, because Xerxes has cut-and-pasted evidence of this in these fossil finds and imaginative drawings/conclusions from the Devonian rock layer dated non-assumptively at 345-405 million years ago - or FAITH that there is a God that made man in His image and likeness, and judged His creation through a flood within the last 10,000 years?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: livewire on July 28, 2012, 07:40:20 AM
Panspermia

Sick.  :P

Uh, maybe I missed something.  Why is this "sick"?


Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 28, 2012, 08:28:52 AM
Less where is the evidence for this flood?
Title: Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human Origins
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 28, 2012, 09:27:26 AM
Inquiries into human origins are on strong ground when genetic data and fossil evidence point in the same direction, but at present geneticists and paleoanthropologists have somewhat different stories to tell. All human fossil remains in Africa for the last 100,000 years, and probably the last 200,000 years, are of modern humans, providing no support for a coexistent archaic species. Another team of geneticists reported in 2010 the finding that Neanderthals had interbred 100,000 years ago with Europeans and Asians, but not Africans. This, too, conflicted with the fossil evidence in implying that modern humans left Africa 100,000 years ago, some 55,000 years before the earliest known fossil evidence of this exodus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-left-dna-in-africa-scientists-report.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/science/cousins-of-neanderthals-left-dna-in-africa-scientists-report.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

Where do we go from here?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 28, 2012, 01:24:44 PM
I've already pointed out you don't find wolves in the Permian. You don't find modern turkeys in the Jurassic, etc. That's a fact.

Now, let young earthers maker sense of this.

Coral produces daily and annual rings, so scientists can tell by them how many days are in a year now (365).

Also, there is a friction caused by ocean tides which slows the Earth's rotation at a fairly consistent rate, so if you do the math in relation to tidal friction, then there should have been 400 days in a year 400 million years ago.

Now, the igneous rocks of the devonian date 400 million years old, using radiometeric dating, which I've already explained.

And guess what scientists find when they observed fossilized coral found in devonian rock? They found the coral testify of there being 400 days in year, just as we'd expect the coral to show if they are really 400 million years old.

NOW, guess what!?

Scientists NEVER find coral of 365 days with the coral of 400 days. NEVER. Not even close. I read about this a few years back in biologist Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True.


Here you have three independent sciences coming together to testify of the FACT of an ancient Earth. Makes sense of that, Young Earthers.


Checkmate.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 28, 2012, 01:29:33 PM
Uh, maybe I missed something.  Why is this "sick"?

I was just joking with him. Panspermia is the idea aliens seeded primitive life here and let it evolve.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 28, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
Less where is the evidence for this flood?

How about 346 whales and other creatures buried rapidly in diatomaceous earth?  That could be one - want some more?

Oh, never mind, you guys won't watch a Hovind video with other examples, and his exposure of LIES in the TEXTBOOKS that should be REMOVED because they have been DISPROVEN(like Nebraska Man that was made-up after finding ONE TOOTH) ... TalkOrigins and the IRS defeated EVERY powerpoint slide Hovind has made in his seminars, and Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis is also a liar and a cheat selling snake-oil Christianity in his creation museum in Kentucky...

NO Evidence for the flood exists anywhere in the world - you go ahead and follow Xerxes and his recommended MINORITY of atheist authors/speakers off an cliff ...
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 28, 2012, 04:41:35 PM
...you go ahead and follow Xerxes and his recommended MINORITY of atheist authors/speakers off an cliff ...

Appeal to majority fallacy. There was a time the majority of the world believed the Earth was flat. And remember that majority disagreed so much with Galileo the church put him under house arrest? All those scientists then followed him off a cliff.

But really, you have nothing there, if you wanna play this game, being the HUGE majority of the Academy of Sciences accept evolution as a fact, some studies have shown 99% of biologists with at least a BA in such accept evolution as a fact, and around %90 of all other educated scientists of other fields.

Who is the majority of people in the world rejecting evolution? Those carrying a Bible and a Quran.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 28, 2012, 09:25:56 PM
They accept evolution as fact because the government funds it, and their jobs depend on it....more than half of them are LYING about believing it, because the gravy train STOPS, and the spigot is SHUT OFF when you bite the hand that feeds you.

Let me guess, now you're gonna call me a conspiracy-theorist?

You're "experts" know how the game is played....it's EASY MONEY and EASY-LIVING...they don't care who believes what, they are in it for the $$$
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 28, 2012, 10:15:36 PM
I said:

Coral produces daily and annual rings, so scientists can tell by them how many days are in a year now (365).

Also, there is a friction caused by ocean tides which slows the Earth's rotation at a fairly consistent rate, so if you do the math in relation to tidal friction, then there should have been 400 days in a year 400 million years ago.

Now, the igneous rocks of the devonian date 400 million years old, using radiometeric dating, which I've already explained.

And guess what scientists find when they observed fossilized coral found in devonian rock? They found the coral testify of there being 400 days in year, just as we'd expect the coral to show if they are really 400 million years old.

NOW, guess what!?

Scientists NEVER find coral of 365 days with the coral of 400 days. NEVER. Not even close. I read about this a few years back in biologist Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True.


Here you have three independent sciences coming together to testify of the FACT of an ancient Earth. Makes sense of that, Young Earthers.


I wanted to add, coral found fossilized from 200 million years ago show 380 days in a year, roughly. So, you find the slow gradual change in days per year, according to coral. A flood cannot name sense of this. A flood would have to say there was 400 days in a year that quickly went to 365, and you'd find both fossilized together. You don't! You find a gradual change.

Again: CHECKMATE.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Tiny on July 28, 2012, 11:31:05 PM
I was just joking with him. Panspermia is the idea aliens seeded primitive life here and let it evolve.

NOT Aliens.

Panspermia is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids.

Panspermia proposes that life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophile archaea, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins.

The first known mention of the term was in the writings of the 5th century BC Greek philosopher Anaxagoras
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 28, 2012, 11:40:13 PM
Some people use the term Panspermia for life being seeded here by aliens, as well. Or that aliens put the spores or seeds of life into space.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: jbs49238 on July 29, 2012, 12:00:44 AM
Can you prove they didn't?

Not taking a position, but there is no way to prove your stance, organized religons stance, etc. etc.  That is why I simply do not get involved in these RIDICULOUS debates!
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 29, 2012, 12:08:16 AM
Can you prove they didn't?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: jbs49238 on July 29, 2012, 12:10:14 AM
Not a valid answer.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 29, 2012, 12:42:38 AM
Not a valid answer.

Not a valid answer.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: livewire on July 29, 2012, 07:36:12 AM
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

That's a big fat NO.   ;)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 29, 2012, 07:48:24 AM
Less that was a localized event amd there was no date given for the time it happened.   I have read Hovinds dissertation have you?  I have watched a ton of Hovind videos and I have come to the conclusion that he is mentally unstable.  I have been to his website and read his prision blog.  Do you know how heavily censored that website is?  I do.

Face it Less you have no ground to stand on.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 29, 2012, 09:56:46 AM
"my name is Forsythia; evolution is FACT because Hovind is mentally unstable"...

Great argument!

I guess all the people who want the LIES out of the textbooks that support that dumb theory are mentally unstable too.

I am pretty sure the "mentally unstable" Kent Hovind(post-dissertation) handled the skeptic Michael Shermer QUITE WELL in their last debate(pre-prison) - (or, at least evolution wasn't PROVEN to be FACT once the debate was concluded); especially when he made the point, to paraphrase "if you're such a skeptic, WHY don't you just HELP ME get the lies of of the textbooks?"

You ought to THINK, Forsythia, before you write such blanket Ad Hominem's that only rip on Hovind's character(and ignore his presented SCIENCE) in order to help your buddy Xerxes.

OK everyone watch - here's a link to the debate ... let's all pick it apart and have a POLL: "does Kent Hovind present his materials/textbook pages/scientific observations as though he is a mentally unstable person and unable to understand science - who also presents NO CASE and NO EVIDENCE for the creation account, and the flood of Noah's day account approximately 4400 years ago being at least a 50/50 possibility with respect to the ORIGIN of HUMAN LIFE?(and current population levels of HUMANS?)"

Please point out the STUPID things Hovind says that makes fundamentalist Christians morons, delusional, ignorant, and exhibiting signs of having a mental disorder for believing in God.

Kent Hovind - Debate 20 - How to Debate a Creationist - Kent Hovind vs. Michael Shermer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcx2LZ2Zj9E#)

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 29, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
...and the flood of Noah's day account being at least a 50/50 possibility...

We'll take creationism and a global flood seriously, when it can explain these things below in the light of creationism and a flood. Until then, nope.



Coral produces daily and annual rings, so scientists can tell by them how many days are in a year now (365).

Also, there is a friction caused by ocean tides which slows the Earth's rotation at a fairly consistent rate, so if you do the math in relation to tidal friction, then there should have been 400 days in a year 400 million years ago.

Now, the igneous rocks of the devonian date 400 million years old, using radiometeric dating, which I've already explained.

And guess what scientists find when they observed fossilized coral found in devonian rock? They found the coral testify of there being 400 days in year, just as we'd expect the coral to show if they are really 400 million years old.

And coral found fossilized from 200 million years ago show 380 days in a year, roughly. So, you find the slow gradual change in days per year, according to coral. A flood cannot name sense of this. A flood would have to say there was 400 days in a year that quickly went to 365, and you'd find both fossilized together. You don't! You find a gradual change.

And guess what!?

Scientists NEVER find coral of 365 days with the coral of 400 days. NEVER. Not even close. I read about this a few years back in biologist Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True.


Here you have three independent sciences coming together to testify of the FACT of an ancient Earth. Makes sense of that, Young Earthers and those who preach a global flood.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 29, 2012, 01:32:00 PM
Less I have poiinted out on multiple occasions where Hovind uses ad homenim attacks and junk science for his beliefs.  Every last argument for a young earth has been refuted by a variety of different sciences.  The man did not do any research into science befofe making his claims.  You can post those videos over and over, but it's not going to chamge the facts.  Have you actually read any of the scientific evisence that refutes Hovinds claims?  Have you taken the time to reaearch that which you fear?   Both Xerxes and I have used multiple sources to back up our facts.  You use one man who has been embarrassed.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 30, 2012, 01:47:21 PM
"You use one man who has been embarrassed."

Accuse Hovind of ad hominems, and you come back with this ad hominem?

You also forgot about Walt Brown, Dr. John Whitcomb, and John MacArthur's exposition of 2 Peter 3.

What kind of total B.S./distraction/shifting of the burden of proof, and outright RUNNING AWAY from the challenge to justify GOVERNMENT-FUNDING of your DUMB THEORY supported with LIES IN THE TEXTBOOKS is this crap?  "We'll believe creation and the flood when you ANSWER my questions"?

I challenged ANYONE reading this thread to pick Hovind's scientific evidence and statements apart - and DESTROY HIM/embarrass him once and for all ... and ONLY you two come back with "Hovind is an idiot" summary statements, and "you PROVE creation FIRST" ... c'mon ... that's WEAK!

You BOTH just got OWNED!!!

The well was already poisoned before Hovind was born by the "idea" that God exists.

It's called CONSCIENCE and CREATION revelation to ALL of MANKIND ... you guys have LOST - believe what you want, risk the eternity of your souls; that is YOUR CHOICE - but - using tax dollars to support your STUPID THEORY that strings EVERYTHING together with the DEITY called "time", and NO EMPIRCAL EVIDENCE; that BURDEN is on all your boys living off the government teet - and I will die on the hill that a very small minority believe there is NO GOD that created anything, that it's ALL NATURAL and the origin of life is CONTAINED within the physical world we can see, smell, and touch!

Hovind's computer analogy OWNED your side in his opening statement; you CANNOT EXPLAIN the ORIGIN of anything within the thing itself - such as - finding bones in the dirt in a certain rock layer; and postulating that tens and hundreds of millions of years later HUMANS EVOLVED from a FISH.

That is BEYOND stupid to believe that, and you will NEVER gain majority opinion on that - you may INDOCTRINATE people to SAY they believe that, and WITHHOLD a degree of higher education, a job, a tenured position, a pension, an opportunity, support for the publication of a scientific study, or GOVERNMENT FUNDING - but you'll NEVER get most of the world to DENY the existence of God through your fairly tale THEORY...all you can do is STRONG-ARM people, INTIMIDATE and RIDICULE them; hoping that they will go away and SHUT UP about God's MORAL ABSOLUTES and authority OVER corrupt governments, RELIGIOUS hypocrites(clergy included - Matthew 24), and proper stewardship over the Earth itself that He created, and it's INFINITE resources!

GAME OVER - rip Hovind amongst your trolling atheistic friends on the internet to upset Christians; you have NOT made your case, you have ONLY cited your bias and DEMANDED Christians chase down your every case, when your side has yet to answer ours ... and FOR THE RECORD ... our RELIGIOUS THEORY is NOT tax-supported; YOURS IS!!!

The debate is about ORIGINS ... not, "how things work" ... thanks for playing ...

LessGovernment OUT!   ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 30, 2012, 02:32:19 PM
I've already countered many of Hovind's claims and the evidences and explanations I've shared void many of his other arguments. His arguments are odd, for example, he claims polonium halos prove a young earth; BUT scientists point out they could very well be uranium halos and Hovind and Gentry cannot demonstrate these are even polonium halos. So, easy...



Did everyone notice how Less REFUSES to address my argument about Coral, Tide Friction, and dating?

HE CAN'T. He's lost so badly. Now all he can do is rage.  ;D
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: jbs49238 on July 30, 2012, 03:46:52 PM
How is coral reliable when it has changed in at account of a "year" so dramatically?

365, 380, 400... which is it?  That more than a 10% margin of error which would put it greatly outside of anything accepted as scientific "proof"!  Tree rings are not good measures of anything either, only time... recorded time is THE BEST indicator of what has happened.  You don't have to buy it all as fact, but it is highly more reliable than coming up with a hypothesis about something you think occured, making it your baseline and then judging everything that happens now against it.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 30, 2012, 03:55:06 PM
How is coral reliable when it has changed in at account of a "year" so dramatically?

365, 380, 400... which is it?  That more than a 10% margin of error which would put it greatly outside of anything accepted as scientific "proof"! 

Huh? It didn't change drastically. That was the point.

Tide friction slows the Earth's rotation at a fairly consistent rate. When you do the mathematics, there should have been about 380 days in a year 200 million years ago, and about 400 days in a year 400 million years ago.

When we exam coral found in igneous rocks that date 400 million years old they show 400 days in a year, and the coral found in 200 million year old rock show about 380 days in a year.

This shows a slow gradual change. And you never find 400 day coral with 380 day coral or 365 day coral. The global flood cannot account for this. It reasonable disproves a global flood, for if the flood happened the change would have been drastic and there should be 400 day, 380, and 365 fossilized together.


Quote
Tree rings are not good measures of anything either, only time... recorded time is THE BEST indicator of what has happened.  You don't have to buy it all as fact, but it is highly more reliable than coming up with a hypothesis about something you think occured, making it your baseline and then judging everything that happens now against it.

Tree rings are only used to factor in fluctuations of c-14 in the atmosphere.

Hovind makes the argument that because the c-14 in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium and moving toward it, that the Earth must be younger than 30,000 years, BUT scientists in this field explain how the c-14 in the atmosphere can reach equilibrium only to be punctuated out of equilibrium, after which it moves back towards equilibrium. Scientists in this field explain how the c-14 of the atmosphere has reached equilibrium many times, only to be punctuated.

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 30, 2012, 04:04:36 PM
"could very well be" is NOT definitive proof....or, is it.

"don't look at ANY of Hovind's stuff, don't READ that Less is talking LOGIC with respect to explaining the ORIGIN of life and the universe which cannot be explained within the natural elements themselves, ignore the REASONABLE point of view that all the complexities we see around us are EVIDENCE of a designer....just trash on Less and dismiss his Creator/flood point of view because he won't do what I say it fall into my traps I lay for creationists since I sit on the computer and bash Christians 20 hours/day"

The Devonian layer of strata in Pennsylvania, Scotland, and parts of Canada is DEFINITIVELY 345-405 million years old...and Hovind's little 6 minute explanation of dating methods in the video embedded earlier is VOID of truth, and when Steven Jay Gould writes a book and strings two FISH together(saying one evolved into another over a period of 20 million years, over 370 million years ago - even though both species are still alive today), any Christian is delusional and has a mental disorder if they believe God made those species(and the "transitional" one they found) just the way we found their fossils in the same rock layer?

Don't question the government paid EXPERTS and their government funded rhetoric and imaginations!!!

Still TWO theories about ORIGINS...how long did it take for the lobe-finned fish(that contains the blue print for the human hand, that showed itself better in the mudskipper that appeard 20 million years later) to evolve from that piece of protoplasm that created itself from non-living rocks that were rained upon for millions of years, billions of years ago?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: jbs49238 on July 30, 2012, 04:19:28 PM
So Xerxes, your argument is that the earth will one day stop?

If tidal friction affects earth rotation it would follw that the earth does not rotate at a static speed throughout the day, since water is NOT equally distributed across the earth then right?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 30, 2012, 05:02:22 PM
So Xerxes, your argument is that the earth will one day stop?

If tidal friction affects earth rotation it would follw that the earth does not rotate at a static speed throughout the day, since water is NOT equally distributed across the earth then right?

Let's do the math.

The Earth dates at about 4.3 to 4.5 billion years, the Sun is close in age. It's believed by scientists that the Sun is halfway through its life cycle before it red dwarfs, and boils the oceans, making Earth a lifeless space rock.

To quote Professor of Biology Jerry Coyne and John Wells, "Each day - one revolution of the Earth - is a tiny bit longer than the last one. Not that you would notice: to be precise, the length of a day increases by about two seconds every 100,000 years. Since the duration of a year - the time it takes the Earth to circle the Sun - doesn’t change over time, this means that the number of days per year must be decreasing over time. From the known rate of slowing, Wells calculated that when his corals were alive - 380 million years ago according to radiometric dating - and each year would have contained about 396 days, each 22 hours long. Wells found that they experienced about 400 days per year, which means that each day was 21.9 hours long. That’s only a tiny deviation from the predicted 22 hours. " End Quote.

Again, coral from 200 million years old show around 380 days in year.

If there were 400 days in a year 400 million years ago, and 380 about 200 million years ago, then in 4.3 to 4.5 billion years, when the Sun red dwarfs, the Earth's rotation would have reached or about have reached an equilibrium. A fitting time to boil the oceans, eh?



Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 30, 2012, 05:53:25 PM
Mathmatical there is not enough time for man to have evolved from ape-like creatures.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 30, 2012, 06:04:28 PM
Mathmatical there is not enough time for man to have evolved from ape-like creatures.

Said the one without a clue.

Marilyn, if you make such claims you should have real science to back you.

Before you say something out of ignorance, again, go read The Making of the Fittest by Biologist Sean B. Carroll, who goes over the mathematics of mutations, selection, and speciation.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 30, 2012, 06:47:17 PM
Marilyn, if you make such claims you should have real science to back you.   - really Xerxes, ???

With science like "it could very well have been" and YOUR appeal to authority of "It's believed by scientists that..."

Here: how's this for SCIENCE to back Hovind ... How did the other 92 elements on the Periodic Table(and the synthetic ones) evolve from Hydrogen after your big bang that happened 4.3 tio 4.5 BILLION years ago? - That's just CHEMICAL Evolution ...

Lies In The Textbooks 4 of 15 ( Kent Hovind ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDmpfwX_lI#)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 30, 2012, 07:26:55 PM
Yeah, scientists. You know, experts that spend their entire lives studying the natural world?

Less, you don't really understand an appeal to authority do you? There's a difference between appealing to Einstein as proof of pantheism, and pointing out the fact that experts in a given field agree on experimental science. There are times one can rightly mention the harmony among experts in relation to natural sciences. Could it be they're wrong on a given point? Yes. But when experts across the board agree on empirical science it's most probably true. And there is a HUGE difference between natural sciences and people agreeing on beliefs not supported by evidence.

You don't know how the elements came into being? Seriously? This is elementary school science. Look into suns and the formation of elements within a sun, and the creation of elements in a supernova. How do you think meteorites came about?

God has meteorites floating around space and crashing into Earth for what reason? Lol... I have to laugh at the pure stupidity that won't even think about simple questions like this.



Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 30, 2012, 07:49:38 PM
Again, Less won't address the harmony of tide friction, coral, and radiometric dating.

He keeps coming back posting a video.


Less, answer the evidences I've posted, or just admit you've lost.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 30, 2012, 08:41:37 PM
Xerxes; you keep saying stupid things - like "igneous rocks that date 400 million years old "

and ... "380 million years ago according to radiometric dating "

UNLESS you can prove Kent Hovind is a LIAR; by showing me that the Devonian rocks that collected your lobe-finned fish, your NEW transitional fossil, and your "mudflipper" were in FACT radiometrically dated, I think there is a MAJOR FLAW with your 400 million years old RHETORIC!!!

Did they DATE THE ROCKS themselves, or, did they go right to the geologic column?

Hovind says - and I want you to PROVE otherwose, that when your SCIENTISTS find fossils, your SCIENTISTS ASK "what rock layer was it found in? "; then they go to the FAMOUS Geologic Column(which is a HOAX) and BEGIN from the BUILT-IN ASSUMPTION that the fossil is between 345-405 million years old through their CIRCULAR REASONING of dating fossils by the rocks, and rocks by the fossils ... then they add all the propaganda about the animals/fish found in the rock layer changing from one species to another over tens of million of years of UN-OBSERVABLE SCIENCE...remember, the word SCIENCE means "to know" ... they don't ... it's a FAIRY TALE & pure imagination.

WATCH THE DATING VIDEO: is Kent Hovind LYING about WHY their dating methods DO NOT work - and WHY they won't date dinosaur fossils with DINOSAUR BLOOD still in them by the carbon dating method! - it's only 8:42 - you can't squeeze that in to your tight schedule of sitting on your butt all day typing and arguing?  C'mon, chew on it, and rip it apart LIE by LIE if Hovind is a LIAR and knows NOTHING about SCIENCE ... go ahead ...

Carbon Dating. Kent Hovind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBH4aIeWICU#)

I'm sorry 'boy wonder'; all your uniformatarianism fluff about "this means that the number of days per year must be decreasing over time" - that DOES means that time will STOP one day millions of years from now ... if things keep going the way they ALWAYS HAVE BEEN(uniformatarianism)...
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 30, 2012, 09:04:09 PM
Of course. Less runs from making sense of the coral, tide friction, and dating. He posts a video of Hovind talking talking about carbon dating, which has nothing to do with radiometric dating of igneous rocks.

Xerxes; you keep saying stupid things - like "igneous rocks that date 400 million years old "

and ... "380 million years ago according to radiometric dating "

UNLESS you can prove Kent Hovind is a LIAR; by showing me that the Devonian rocks that collected your lobe-finned fish, your NEW transitional fossil, and your "mudflipper" were in FACT radiometrically dated, I think there is a MAJOR FLAW with your 400 million years old RHETORIC!!!

Did they DATE THE ROCKS themselves, or, did they go right to the geologic column?

Hovind says - and I want you to PROVE otherwose, that when your SCIENTISTS find fossils, your SCIENTISTS ASK "what rock layer was it found in? "; then they go to the FAMOUS Geologic Column(which is a HOAX) and BEGIN from the BUILT-IN ASSUMPTION that the fossil is between 345-405 million years old through their CIRCULAR REASONING of dating fossils by the rocks, and rocks by the fossils ... then they add all the propaganda about the animals/fish found in the rock layer changing from one species to another over tens of million of years of UN-OBSERVABLE SCIENCE...remember, the word SCIENCE means "to know" ... they don't ... it's a FAIRY TALE & pure imagination.

Less, you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever met.

You said, and I quote, "...when your SCIENTISTS find fossils, your SCIENTISTS ASK "what rock layer was it found in? "; then they go to the FAMOUS Geologic Column(which is a HOAX) and BEGIN from the BUILT-IN ASSUMPTION that the fossil is between 345-405 million years old through their CIRCULAR REASONING of dating fossils by the rocks, and rocks by the fossils ..." End Quote.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Provide a thoughtful and scientific explanation to back this twisting of reality. Talk about inventing some utter bullshlt, just to discredit people.

Doesn't your Bible and Jesus forbid lying?

Listen again: When volcanic magma cools it creates igneous rock. Within this igneous rock are crystals with radioactive isotopes of potassium-40, which decay at a constant rate into argon-40. When the rocks first cool there isn't any argon-40, only potassium-40; therefore, the rocks are zeroed in. When the rock cools, the timer starts!

When they look at the ratio of potassium-40 and argon-40, in relation to the constant decay rate, they can accurately tell you how old those igneous rocks are. Some creationists say water can affect this, but that's not true, as water would not wash the isotopes out of the inside of crystals.

Show me scientific evidence that displays the errors of such radiometric dating. I've already corrected Hovind's error on carbon dating, as the c-14 in the atmosphere goes in and out of equilibrium.


Quote
I'm sorry 'boy wonder'; all your uniformatarianism fluff about "this means that the number of days per year must be decreasing over time" - that DOES means that time will STOP one day millions of years from now ... if things keep going the way they ALWAYS HAVE BEEN(uniformatarianism)...

Who ever said time would stop? lol...

I was speaking about entropy. Do you know what that is? Do you know the laws of thermodynamics? Do you understand why open systems end up in equilibrium? Do you know why you can't create a perpetual motion machine, and why it will stop? Research those things and you'll understand better.



Now, stop running, and make sense of this reality in the light of creationism - argument below:

Quote
Coral produces daily and annual rings, so scientists can tell by them how many days are in a year now (365).

Also, there is a friction caused by ocean tides which slows the Earth's rotation at a fairly consistent rate, so if you do the math in relation to tidal friction, then there should have been 400 days in a year 400 million years ago.

Now, the igneous rocks of the devonian date 400 million years old, using radiometeric dating, which I've already explained.

And guess what scientists find when they observed fossilized coral found in devonian rock? They found the coral testify of there being 400 days in year, just as we'd expect the coral to show if they are really 400 million years old.

And coral found fossilized from 200 million years ago show 380 days in a year, roughly. So, you find the slow gradual change in days per year, according to coral. A flood cannot name sense of this. A flood would have to say there was 400 days in a year that quickly went to 365, and you'd find both fossilized together. You don't! You find a gradual change.

And guess what!?

Scientists NEVER find coral of 365 days with the coral of 400 days. NEVER. Not even close.

Tide friction slows the Earth's rotation at a fairly consistent rate. When you do the mathematics, there should have been about 380 days in a year 200 million years ago, and about 400 days in a year 400 million years ago.

When we exam coral found in igneous rocks that date 400 million years old they show 400 days in a year, and the coral found in 200 million year old rock show about 380 days in a year.

This shows a slow gradual change. And you never find 400 day coral with 380 day coral or 365 day coral. The global flood cannot account for this. It reasonable disproves a global flood, for if the flood happened the change would have been drastic and there should be 400 day, 380, and 365 fossilized together.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 30, 2012, 10:38:23 PM
He posts a video of Hovind talking talking about carbon dating, which has nothing to do with radiometric dating of igneous rocks.

Xerxes; what did he LIE about, when he wasn't talking about carbon-dating between 5:24 and 6:50 ?

I think he gave you something to chew on.

I want to see where your scientists dated the Devonian rock layer at 385 million years old, with respect to the precious lobe-finned fish fossil they found as presented in your Steven Jay Gould book - I also want to see where your scientists who found the EVOLVED "mudskipper" fossil as presented in the same Steven Jay Gould book dated the Devonian rock at 365 million years old.

Can I have that evidence please?

Can I also have the explanation about the unfossilized dinosaur bones being discovered that have been around for 70 million years, and maybe something about the dinosaur blood found that is supposed to be 70 million years old - and no way less than 10,000 years old!

I just want to make sure that your scientists are NOT using the geologic colmun to get their ages of these fossils they find.

Again, it's more "answer my question first, I disproved Hovind" - no you didn't ... in and out of equilibrium ... I don't know ... can't believe in 20 debates nobody wiped the floor with Hovind's OWN explanation and proved him a liar?

Do you know the laws of thermodynamics?  I know the laws of thermodynamics don't support evolution from monkeys to humans, and so many beneficial mutations that would result in HUMAN SPEECH from the grunts and groans of animals...it says everything is BREAKING DOWN, not getting better.

Anyway; here is a bunch of Xerxes' going at Hovind and University of California Berkely in 2004

Over 160 Professors Refuse to Debate Creationist! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7rJmd3ECBk&feature=relmfu#)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 30, 2012, 10:50:09 PM
Less, until you address coral, tide friction, and radiometric dating, I'm done discussing things with you.

You completely ignored all the evidences I presented, such as atavisms, vestiges, ERV's, lanugo, etc., etc., etc. You REFUSE to explain these things in the light of creationism and then keep preaching a conspiracy in science, which you have no proof to back.

Answer my evidences, making sense of them in light of creationism, and I'll thoughtfully offer a rebuttal to you claims about the dinosaur tissue mentioned above, and what you said in relation to Gould. Until then you're on the run.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: jbs49238 on July 31, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
Let's do the math.

The Earth dates at about 4.3 to 4.5 billion years, the Sun is close in age. It's believed by scientists that the Sun is halfway through its life cycle before it red dwarfs, and boils the oceans, making Earth a lifeless space rock.

To quote Professor of Biology Jerry Coyne and John Wells, "Each day - one revolution of the Earth - is a tiny bit longer than the last one. Not that you would notice: to be precise, the length of a day increases by about two seconds every 100,000 years. Since the duration of a year - the time it takes the Earth to circle the Sun - doesn’t change over time, this means that the number of days per year must be decreasing over time. From the known rate of slowing, Wells calculated that when his corals were alive - 380 million years ago according to radiometric dating - and each year would have contained about 396 days, each 22 hours long. Wells found that they experienced about 400 days per year, which means that each day was 21.9 hours long. That’s only a tiny deviation from the predicted 22 hours. " End Quote.

Again, coral from 200 million years old show around 380 days in year.

If there were 400 days in a year 400 million years ago, and 380 about 200 million years ago, then in 4.3 to 4.5 billion years, when the Sun red dwarfs, the Earth's rotation would have reached or about have reached an equilibrium. A fitting time to boil the oceans, eh?





You said:  "Let's do the math..."

Then provided a theory as a baseline.  Just like the accepted science of today.

You cannot prove anything about 400 million years ago, the age of the earth, the age of the sun, none of it cannot be proven.

I think some things have evolved over time, heck I even believe that species have been created and destroyed through interaction with other species, or change in environment.  But what do I agree with more?  Documented events... and I do not count a ring of coral or a ring in a tree trunk as qualifiable documentation of anything, especially when those conclusions are always "being tweaked" by the next great thinker with the next great idea.

I found a discolored notch in a tree trunk once, I also found differing numbers of rings in a batch of trees we planted in the same year on Front St. when they died and we took them down, so NO I do not find that to be acceptable science since it is in no way consistant.  Those tree (5 of them) were planted 8 feet apart in exactly the same type of soil and took the same amount of moisture, yet they were dramatically different, when according to "science" they should have been identical.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 01:30:43 AM
You said:  "Let's do the math..."

Then provided a theory as a baseline.  Just like the accepted science of today.

You cannot prove anything about 400 million years ago, the age of the earth, the age of the sun, none of it cannot be proven.

Ever hear of reason, measurement, mathematics, comparative observations, etc?


Quote
I think some things have evolved over time, heck I even believe that species have been created and destroyed through interaction with other species, or change in environment.  But what do I agree with more?  Documented events... and I do not count a ring of coral or a ring in a tree trunk as qualifiable documentation of anything, especially when those conclusions are always "being tweaked" by the next great thinker with the next great idea.

Radiometric dating and these coral will not be overthrown by the next great thinker. lol...

You don't think this is evidence? You base that on? Because you don't want it to be evidence?

Seriously, do some research into this or just remain in the dark, and deny reality because you don't think it's true, based on no real scientific objection.

Quote
I found a discolored notch in a tree trunk once, I also found differing numbers of rings in a batch of trees we planted in the same year on Front St. when they died and we took them down, so NO I do not find that to be acceptable science since it is in no way consistant.  Those tree (5 of them) were planted 8 feet apart in exactly the same type of soil and took the same amount of moisture, yet they were dramatically different, when according to "science" they should have been identical.

Who said rings were used in the dating of trees? I said tree rings are used in relation to the fluctuations of c-14.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 31, 2012, 01:46:14 AM
Less, until you ... I'm done discussing things with you.

1) Radiometric dating - show me where the Devonian layer of ROCKS were dated at 385 million years old for your Steven Jay Gould example of the lobe-finned fish(still in existence today) fossil, and show me where the Devonian rocks of the 20 million years later EVOLVED mudskipper(still in existence today) were dated 365 million years ago through ANY DATING METHOD you want.

I want PROOF that all 3 of your Steven Jay Gould fossils were NOT buried in the same catastrophe; but SEPARATE catastrophes, 10 million years apart ... I want PROOF that the same 3 species did NOT live together simultaneously, and get buried in the same CATASTROPHE.

WHY would you post Steven Jay Gould pictures, NOT address them when asked - and then go on to Coral tide and other things?  Make Steven Jay Gould's book STICK; a guy who would NOT debate Hovind ... I don't care about volcanic rock right now, I care about Devonian rock being dated at 345-405 million years ago - and NOT by the fossils found in that layer.

You completely ignored all the evidences I presented - I am after an answer on this; your PICTURE from this thread:

#1) Fossils(BONES ONLY) of a fish were found in a rock layer called Devonian, they named it Eusthenopteron and estimated/printed that this particular lobe-finned fish lived 385 million years ago(and lobe-finned fishes have been found to exist today);

#2) Fossils(BONES ONLY) of something they named Tiktaalik was recently found in that same rock layer called Devonian, and they estimated/printed it lived 375 million years ago, and that it EVOLVED from the Eusthenopteron over 10 million years;

#3) Fossils(BONES ONLY) of something they named Ichthyostega (which still seem to exist TODAY as a “mudskipper” as seen in the National Geographic video/link provided by YOURS TRULY in Xerxes earlier complaints about things I refuse to address as EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION) was found in the same rock layer called Devonian, and they estimated it lived 365 million years ago and it EVOLVED from the Tiktaalik.

making sense of them in light of creationism - it would seem VERY LIKELY to me that God just may have made the Eusthenopteron, the Tiktaalik, and the Ichthyostega just the way He wanted them "in the beginning"; and they got buried alive in the worldwide flood of Noah's day.

I think an appeal to CHRONOLOGY is in order here, you posted the Gould picture FIRST, he is one who ALSO refused to debate Hovind; I say the Gould picture is PROPAGANDA that keeps his paychecks coming in(his career depends on producing/presenting the evolution RELIGION like that), and Hovind makes a strong case that Christians should NOT ACCEPT 365 million, 375 million, 385 million years ago - or - changes over a 20 million year time period as SCIENCE because that is NOT KNOWLEDGE ... but more importantly ... I think I have some people of faith(who know you are a MOCKER of them) watching Hovind videos now, and, they also don't think he(or I for that matter) are complete morons, idiots, delusional, or people with a mental disorder.

Consider the well POISONED with a strong POSSIBILITY that there was a creation event less than 10,000 years ago, and a strong POSSIBILITY the Creator flooded Earth 4400 years ago - and consider your God-less worldview only supported by whatever lie you have to keep telling yourself; wrapped in another deity called "TIME" - but not science.
 
'nuff said!
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 31, 2012, 02:04:34 AM
Oh, wait - ONE MORE -

You completely ignored...the evidences I presented, such as ... vestiges,

Everyone, scroll on up the to last Hovind video "160 Professors refuse to debate..." and scroll ahead to the 41:20 mark, and watch about them VESTIGES ...  ;)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: jbs49238 on July 31, 2012, 02:18:53 AM
Ever hear of reason, measurement, mathematics, comparative observations, etc?


Radiometric dating and these coral will not be overthrown by the next great thinker. lol...

How can you be so sure?

You don't think this is evidence? You base that on? Because you don't want it to be evidence?

Seriously, do some research into this or just remain in the dark, and deny reality because you don't think it's true, based on no real scientific objection.


Ahh... There it is!!!  "You don't agree with everything I have to say, and everything I present as truth so you must just be another stupid unenlightened hickifant!"  That is why, as I said earlier... I try not to get involved in this foolishness.  There is what you say and was LG says and we all know the truth is something none of us will ever know as long as we tread this earth.  I believe I will learn the truth from my Creator when I am called home, but again, that is not a discussion I am going to have here with the likes of you.
Who said rings were used in the dating of trees? I said tree rings are used in relation to the fluctuations of c-14.

This guy does... are you smarter than him?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 31, 2012, 07:14:47 AM
Hey Less read this website and you will see where scientists debunk all of Hovind's claims.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD)

There, I win.


JBS if you go through the above website you will see where creationism, especially young earth creationism, is debunked by science.  The website has sources of research that has been done to disprove all creationist claims including those of philosophy and a massive earth wide flood.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 31, 2012, 09:27:23 AM
Yeah, scientists. You know, experts that spend their entire lives studying the natural world?

Less, you don't really understand an appeal to authority do you? There's a difference between appealing to Einstein as proof of pantheism, and pointing out the fact that experts in a given field agree on experimental science. There are times one can rightly mention the harmony among experts in relation to natural sciences. Could it be they're wrong on a given point? Yes. But when experts across the board agree on empirical science it's most probably true. And there is a HUGE difference between natural sciences and people agreeing on beliefs not supported by evidence.

You don't know how the elements came into being? Seriously? This is elementary school science. Look into suns and the formation of elements within a sun, and the creation of elements in a supernova. How do you think meteorites came about?

God has meteorites floating around space and crashing into Earth for what reason? Lol... I have to laugh at the pure stupidity that won't even think about simple questions like this.




I've been observing the natural world since I can remember, does that make me an expert? I see proof of God throughout the natural sciences.

Who knows how long a day with God is?


Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 31, 2012, 10:25:21 AM
Hey Less read this website and you will see where scientists debunk all of Hovind's claims.

And there you have it, folks - the LAST gasp for air to keep the dying rhetoric ALIVE ... Hovind-bashing.

Funny how NONE OF THESE guys could have gotten ONE PERSON, one scientist, one university professor to take ONE of those points that "debunk" hovind directly to Hovind PERSONALLY in a Q & A session in a debate over the course of a decade while he was speaking 700 times a year ALL OVER the country and debating on college campuses over 100 times.

Nope, they run ANONYMOUS websites, full of name-calling, ad hominems, and atheism - yet the debate still rages on about ORIGINS(how did life get here); not, how things work.

Thing are COMPLEX now because they were DESIGNED that was by and AWESOME Creator - not because the simplest life forms evolved through beneficial mutations from a protoplasm, to a walking whale, to a fish with the blueprint of human hands, into whining monkeys and grunting gorillas, and then to humans over hundreds of MILLIONS of years - don't forget, humans with SPEECH where we pass on accumulated information, and portray thoughts to people who don't want to hear about a Creator, Liberty, abuse of tax dollars, criticism of federally-controlled education, a sense of justice, compassion, love, mercy, heaven, hell, and morality over great distances like the internet ... on computers made of natural components, that didn't SELF-ASSEMBLE over millions of years either! 

Faith that living cells evolved from nothing(non-living material) in a big bang, and found someone to marry, then SELF-ASSEMBLED and beneficially mutated through random chance into complex human beings with EYESIGHT is GREATER than believing God created, God judged sin, God sent His Son to pay man's sin debt, and God will send Him once again and judge once and for all.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 31, 2012, 10:38:30 AM
Hey Less read this website and you will see where scientists debunk all of Hovind's claims.

And there you have it, folks - the LAST gasp for air to keep the dying rhetoric ALIVE ... Hovind-bashing.

How was that Hovind bashing?  That website uses sound science to trounce every single creationist claim.  You should read it. 

Quote
Funny how NONE OF THESE guys could have gotten ONE PERSON, one scientist, one university professor to take ONE of those points that "debunk" hovind directly to Hovind PERSONALLY in a Q & A session in a debate over the course of a decade while he was speaking 700 times a year ALL OVER the country and debating on college campuses over 100 times.

Probably because they were doing research or something more important with their time.

Quote
Nope, they run ANONYMOUS websites, full of name-calling, ad hominems, and atheism - yet the debate still rages on about ORIGINS(how did life get here); not, how things work.

Go to the site map and contact the creator of the website.  I have had quite a few friends ask questions about things and they get contacted by real scientists with answers.  You might want to try it out.

Quote
Thing are COMPLEX now because they were DESIGNED that was by and AWESOME Creator - not because the simplest life forms evolved through beneficial mutations from a protoplasm, to a walking whale, to a fish with the blueprint of human hands, into whining monkeys and grunting gorillas, and then to humans over hundreds of MILLIONS of years - don't forget, humans with SPEECH where we pass on accumulated information, and portray thoughts to people who don't want to hear about a Creator, Liberty, abuse of tax dollars, criticism of federally-controlled education, a sense of justice, compassion, love, mercy, heaven, hell, and morality over great distances like the internet ... on computers made of natural components, that didn't SELF-ASSEMBLE over millions of years either! 

The burden of proof lies on you.

Quote
Faith that living cells evolved from nothing(non-living material) in a big bang, and found someone to marry, then SELF-ASSEMBLED and beneficially mutated through random chance into complex human beings with EYESIGHT is GREATER than believing God created, God judged sin, God sent His Son to pay man's sin debt, and God will send Him once again and judge once and for all.

What faith?  The building blocks of life have been created in labratory settings.  Oh and why does it have to be the Christian god?  Why can't the Muslim or Hindu god be the one that is correct?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 12:36:11 PM
Ok. I'm burnt out on this topic.

I wanted to discuss evolution with someone who has their own personal knowledge, through research.

But that's not the case. All I'm getting is evolution deniers saying, "It's not true! You don't have evidence!" even though I've presented scores of evidences. Their bias prevents them from accepting evidence, and they read an evil conspiracy into science, distrusting it due to seeds of doubts sowed into their minds from the ignorance of religion and its texts. They're not discussing this from personal knowledge, gained by study, but merely saying it isn't true and posting videos.

I don't know why I waste my time trying to explain something from personal knowledge when the other side won't do the same. I may as well say, "Creationism is false and here's a video to show why."

Here, all. Watch Kent Hovind videos, and read the rebuttals at talkorigins.org. I'm done wasting my time explaining things only to have arguments from ignorance and videos thrown at me.

The question of evolution deals with our origins. You owe it to yourself to be intellectually honest and research these things for your self, in depth, alone, among your own ability to critically think.




I'll conclude beating this dead horse with the words of Darwin himself, which I find so beautifully true:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species -1859
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 31, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
So, would it be correct to say that Charles Darwin, that BEAUTIFUL human being that ALSO dropped his faith like Xerxes when he read about the "principles of" Geology, and then decided "ALL THINGS SHOULD BE RELATED" after observing 14 VARIATIONS among birds on the Galapagos Islands - which means in 2012 - banana's and dogs are related through common ancestry? - good job Charlie!

Does your TalkOrigins website refute this 15 minute presentation where the supposedly delusional and mentally unstable Kent Hovind calls Charlie Darwin a "loser" with totally unsubstantiated, unresearched, totally unfactual, ad hominem "arguments from ignorance" and personal opinion that CANNOT be backed up with SCIENCE regarding KINDS of animals and OBSERVATION?

I mean, any other viewer of this thread who KNOWS you started this whole thing to MOCK Christians; and, should they decide they AGREE with you in that they "owe it to [them]selves to be intellectually honest and research these things for [them]selves, in depth, alone, among your own ability to critically think."; will they IN FACT become a Darwinian Evolutionist because the EVIDENCE is OVERWHELMING?

I'll just keep using Hovind videos - but - I still think Mechanical Engineer and West Point Graduate Walt Brown's hydroplate theory is worthy of contemplation(and his scholastic achievements are credible); as well as Princeton Graduate and student of Paleontology Dr. John Whitcomb's, Pastor John MacArthur's and OTHER Christians who do THINK they were created by God, and are able to THINK CRITICALLY in my opinion.

Here Xerxes, a SOFTBALL for ya: how about you come back saying "after watching Hovind's materials AND reading TalkOrigins, ANYONE who remains a Christian, and still believes God created in the year 2012, is hereby deemed by us ATHEISTS as UNABLE to think critically about the things they see and experience in the world around them"(and NOT worth our time on this forum too!) ... is that your position?  Did I articulate it for you correctly?

You have a lot more work to do than try to tear ACCOMPLISHED people down, and call them delusional and mentally challenged because they believe in God.  We could even shelf the Young Earth/Old Earth debate for another day - but you CHOSE the atheistic "God doesn't exist" side of things - so - I will pin you down on that one ... we are NOT the insults you say we are ... It's YOUR CHOICE if you want to dump your faith and fill your head with natural science and say "God DIDN'T do it" - but don't come on a public forum and MOCK Christians unless your science is empirical, and you can put those guys to SHAME as FOOLS with PROOF that NO Creator could, would, did, will, or can ... evolution is a theory where death, suffering, and mutations advances the species and makes them better ... not possible IMO. 

Kent Hovind talking about Charles Darwin - Creation beats Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYHFzlFIiYo#)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 04:05:21 PM
As I said, I'm done beating the horse. There comes a time you realize the horse can't be trained, so you leave it be, as opposed to beating it to death.

I've provided plenty of evidence and rebuttals. My work in this thread is done.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 04:33:41 PM
And on the final beat I'll conclude with this song I wrote in 2009 for my creationist friends.  ;D

It stars Kent Hovind, Francis Collins, Head of the Human Gemone Project at the University of Michigan, and Ken Miller, Biologist at Brown University.


Evolution Vs. Creationism Song - Francis Collins, Kent Hovind, & Ken Miller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajULH6dNihI#)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 31, 2012, 05:54:20 PM
Actually Talk Origins addresses every point in that video.  Now if you would be intellectually honest, you would do research and see that ALL creationist claims have been refuted by a variety of experts in a variety of sciences.  I will admit, when I first started reading your posts I started to doubt evloution.  Then I did actual research and I knew that science had proven evolution to be true.

I'm not sure if I want to read the answer, but I have to ask this question.  Why do you,  and those like you, feel so threatened by evolution and the science behind it?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: T-M-T on July 31, 2012, 06:21:43 PM
Actually Talk Origins addresses every point in that video.  Now if you would be intellectually honest, you would do research and see that ALL creationist claims have been refuted by a variety of experts in a variety of sciences.  I will admit, when I first started reading your posts I started to doubt evloution.  Then I did actual research and I knew that science had proven evolution to be true.

It’s interesting you mention actually researching this, because I have been reading some of the thread and actually decided to watch a couple of the Hovind videos just to see if he made any sense.  (I watch Fox News, too, just to see different sides of the issues.) The videos were pathetic, especially the one about carbon dating.  Hovind clearly has no clue as to the actual science used in various methods of dating and learned just enough about carbon dating to use a few buzzwords and sound like he was knowledgeable enough to mount some weak attack on the science.

(I got a laugh when I saw a link to a Hovind video on “dating.”  My first thought was that it was about the "dating" he is doing in prison.  I hope he's enjoying himself. ;))
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 31, 2012, 06:27:34 PM
watch out TMT.  I'm sure Less will jump all over you because we all know Hovind was railroaded by the government.

If you want to read some interesting stuff go to the free Hovind website.   The comments on the Hovind blog are monitored extremely tight and no dissenting posts are allowed.  I thought Hovind was all about getting the truth out.  Why doesn't he allow debate on his website?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 06:30:44 PM
I will admit, when I first started reading your posts I started to doubt evloution.  Then I did actual research and I knew that science had proven evolution to be true.

When it comes to evolution, scientific knowledge will slay that metaphorical demon of doubt.

One of the problems we have is our perception of time. We live on average about 75 years, or so, at best, and by that time we've forgotten a lot of things from our own past; so, to understand millions of years of breeding, death, and the accumulation of change is hard to grasp. We fail to factor in how many beings have walked this Earth and how wild the branching of genetic drift has been, along with extinction and hybridism. We fail to factor in that in our life time alone billions of beings (fish, animals, and insects) have been born and died, and it was also billions every year long ago. We fail to remember how RNA and DNA is being copied and typos are made in the genome, which create a small changes in the outer body of shape and size and color; and how these changes are saved, and that such changes accumulate, being driven forward. We fail to remember that one base pair mutation can give a person six fully functional fingers on each hand. We understand what it means for the Earth's plates to move at the rate our finger nails grow, but we find it hard to grasp that over millions of years that accumulates to a rearrangement of the entire world map.

To quote Sam Harris, "When asked how thick a piece of newspaper would be if one could fold it upon itself one hundred times in succession, most of us imagine something about the size of a brick. A little arithmetic reveals, however, that such an object would be as thick as the known universe. If we've learned anything in the last two thousand years, it is that a person's sense of what is reasonable sometimes needs a little help finding its feet." End Quote.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: T-M-T on July 31, 2012, 06:41:32 PM
Here's more about Hovind from Wikipedia:

Quote
Hovind has made controversial remarks regarding conspiracies, science, creation, equal rights, religion, and government over the years. Hovind's creationist presentations have asserted that the reason creationism based on the Genesis creation narrative is not taught in public schools is tied to "an international conspiracy" of "'The New World Order' (NWO) consisting of Ted Turner and his wife Jane Fonda, the British Royal Family, the State of Israel, the American Civil Liberties Union, and a smattering of former and present US government officials, business leaders, and social activists (particularly those advocating population control) — shades of the Trilateral Commission."[91] In May 1999, he claimed "the implementation of the NWO's world-domination plan was May 5, 2000."[91]

Hovind has several conspiracy theories about the U.S. government. He believes that the cyanide-releasing compound Laetrile is a "cancer cure" and argues that the US government is conspiring to suppress a cure for cancer.[29][92] On his radio program, he has said that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks, killing nearly 3000 people and that a "lot of folks were told not to come to work."[93] He also believes the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by the government. "Did you know the Federal Government blew up their own building to blame it on the militias and to get rid of some people that weren't cooperating with the system?"[94] Regarding UFOs, Hovind recommends books by conspiracy theorists who believe "some UFO’s are U.S. Government experiments with electrogravitic propulsion as opposed to jet propulsion, while others are Satanic apparitions."[95][96] Additionally, Hovind believes that the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, and various other groups are planning to create a one world government and that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was staged by the US Government in order to pass "anti-terrorism" legislation that restricts civil liberties.

As part of his "one world government" conspiracy theory, Hovind also believes that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), HIV, West Nile virus, Gulf war syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, Wegener's disease, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's colitis, Type I diabetes, and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's were all engineered by "the money masters and governments of the world" for the purpose of global economic domination.[101] Hovind believes "Satan has been using the great pyramid as his symbol for the New World Order"[102] and that "the Great Pyramid could have been built by Adam's relatives"[96] He believes that the United States government is secretly plotting to implant an "electronic ID" microchip in the body of every US citizen, which is the Mark of the Beast.[103][104] The aim, he believes, is to put "a chip into each of the major muscles and network them together so that a paralyzed person would be able to get some movement from their muscles" so that there "is going to be a system where you cannot buy or sell without the mark in the hands or in the forehead."[105] Yet, the mechanisms and history of such a project do not withstand scientific and historical scrutiny.[103]

Regarding barcodes and the security strip on money, Hovind stated they are tied to a government plot in which barcodes and the "magnetic tape through the center of the paper" money "is of the same type that is on the back of your credit card" for tracking money and people.[105] Thus, the government "want to be able to track the money and find out where it goes."[105] Hovind has also stated an opposition to democracy, saying: "If Evolution is true, there is no Creator, so laws come from man's opinion. That is called a democracy, which is a terrible form of government. Democracies always degenerate into dictatorships. In America, it is sad to say, has become a democracy."[106] Hovind also stated: "democracy is evil and contrary to God's law"[87] and "democracy is a horrible form of government."



Call it "ad hominem" if you want, but it's really evidence that the guy is truly a nutcase.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 06:45:09 PM
Here's more about Hovind from Wikipedia:

Call it "ad hominem" if you want, but it's really evidence that the guy is truly a nutcase.



Lol... What should we expect from a guy who believes 5,000 years ago, before the flood, dinosaurs breathed fire? It's sad that people, like Less, have to rely on a man who's mentally unstable just so they can cling to their beliefs in desperation.


Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs Breathed Fire! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOzoMoH-7sM#)
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 31, 2012, 06:54:04 PM
You "there is no God" guys are also a laugh-riot.

Xerxes, I think that is the 3rd time you've posted the creation-mocking song video on MT.

So, it's Xerxes, Forsythia, and T-M-T against Christians who believe God created.  How is your government-funded side doing these days? 

With all the PROOF that the blueprint of human hands is seen in the "mudflipper" that Steven Jay Gould's book picture says is 365 milion years old(evolved from the lobe finned fish over the course of 20 million years), and the PROOF I have yet to see that Broca's Convolusion is a beneficial mutation that genetically came to the surface FROM Apes perhaps some 5 to 11 million years ago - You guys got me.

Amazing how many "respectable" people who work at NASA call themselves Christians - what idiots - I hope you guys will help all those deluded folks out ... or, run them out of a job; they cannot possible UNDERSTAND science while haveing that mental disorder.

Let me know when Christianity is defeated, and that "loser" Darwin gets his star on the Hollywood Hall of Fame - because Disney ought to HONOR his memory for what he convinced you guys is the TRUE ORIGIN of human life!

Hang it on Hovind for being the poster boy who made creation look stupid, and helping your cause; run for public office on that atheistic platform too - you could CHANGE THE WORLD if you got elected ... let me know how much support you would get as God/Christ mockers; in America - the wealthiest, yet most DELUDED nation on Earth.

I just don't understand why evolution theory had to be government-funded, and the religious propaganda about million of years and billions of years had to be taught to the youngest in our PUBLIC SCHOOLS when it is such a SOLID SCIENCE, PROVEABLE from every vantage point and field of study, and just plain common sense that God in FACT does not exist. 

Good job guys - you ROCK!
 
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on July 31, 2012, 07:45:17 PM
I'm not against Christians.   I know a lot of them and they are good people.   I also don't see how evolution and Christianity aren't compatible.   

Less no one was mocking anyone.  I know what it's like to get your religion mocked.  I know what it's like to be beat up by 6 girls because I was wearing a pentacle.  You need to take a Xanax or something there sailor.

As for me running for public office, never going to happen.  There are provocative pictures of me out there on the internet.  Ahhh to be that young and think again....Oh and fellas dont go getting your hopes up.  There were no naughty bits showing, just a lot of skin and leather pants...
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 07:45:45 PM
With all the PROOF that the blueprint of human hands is seen in the "mudflipper" that Steven Jay Gould's book picture says is 365 milion years old(evolved from the lobe finned fish over the course of 20 million years)...



You compel me to beat the dumb horse again.

Mudflipper? Do you mean mudskipper? Get the name right. Lol...


Less is trying to say that this is a Mudskipper.

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/31/AEygz.jpg)


THIS is a mudskipper:

(http://www.imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/31/VHP82.jpg)


Look at the anatomies of the two. Mudskippers are not even sarcopterygians, they are oxudercinaes.


Now, provide of a picture of the sarcopterygian Gould had in his book.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on July 31, 2012, 08:01:08 PM
Note to Xerxes; you will NEVER stop beating this horse, just as Less, who said Goodbye a few days ago, will never stop. Interesting to watch all the stopping, however.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 08:05:47 PM
Oh, and when it comes to the Broca's Convolution, I can't make any comments on that, as I don't know anything about that particular case.

But I've shown plenty of living transitions (although, all species are in transition or temporary equilibrium) and mentioned the peppered moths, which were observed to gain beneficial mutations, and the podarcis sicula (P. sicula), etc., etc., etc.

This is an amazing evidence of beneficial mutations:

In 1971, ten adult P. sicula specimens from the island of Pod Kopiste were transported 3.5 km east to the island of Pod Mrcaru (both Croatian islands lie in the Adriatic Sea near Lastovo), where they founded a new bottlenecked population. The two islands have similar size, elevation, microclimate, and a general absence of terrestrial predators and the P. sicula expanded for decades without human interference, even outcompeting the (now extinct) local Podarcis melisellensis population.

Following the Yugoslav Wars, scientists returned to Pod Mrcaru and found that the lizards currently occupying Pod Mrcaru differ greatly from those on Pod Kopiste. While mitochondrial DNA analyses have verified that P. sicula currently on Pod Mrcaru are genetically indistinguishable from the Pod Kopiste source population, the new Pod Mrcaru population of P. sicula was described, in August 2007, as having a larger average size, shorter hind limbs, lower maximal sprint speed and altered response to simulated predatory attacks compared to the original Pod Kopiste population. These population changes in morphology and behavior were attributed to "relaxed predation intensity" and greater protection from vegetation on Pod Mrcaru.

In 2008, further analysis revealed that the Pod Mrcaru population of P. sicula have significantly different head morphology (longer, wider, and taller heads) and increased bite force compared to the original Pod Kopiste population. This change in head shape corresponded with a shift in diet: Pod Kopiste P. sicula are primarily insectivorous, but those on Pod Mrcaru eat substantially more plant matter. The changes in foraging style may have contributed to a greater population density and decreased territorial behavior of the Pod Mrcaru population.

The most surprising difference found between the two populations was the discovery, in the Pod Mrcaru lizards, of cecal valves, which slow down food passage and provide fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to nutrients digestible by the lizards. Additionally, the researchers discovered that nematodes were common in the guts of Pod Mrcaru lizards, but absent from Pod Kopiste P. sicula, which do not have cecal valves. The cecal valves, which occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles, have been described as an "evolutionary novelty, a brand new feature not present in the ancestral population and newly evolved in these lizards".

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 08:07:01 PM
Note to Xerxes; you will NEVER stop beating this horse, just as Less, who said Goodbye a few days ago, will never stop. Interesting to watch all the stopping, however.

Seriously, I'm going to stop!

Ok... I'm stopping NOW.


I'm done beating this horse.  ;D Less can have the last word.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: LessGovernment on July 31, 2012, 08:40:54 PM
Here's more about Hovind from Wikipedia:

Here's MORE about Hovind from Lew Rockwell about his TAX CASE:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi143.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi143.html)

Xerxes, you are really gonna run away from showing us HOW human speech evolved from grunts and groans of apes?  AND you are gonna beat me up on the TYPO "mudflipper" vs. "mudskipper" when you KNOW FULL WELL you have NO evidence for radiometric dating of the Devonain rocks that housed the 385 million year old lobe finned fish in Steven Jay Gould's book that pictures it turning into a "mudskipper" 20 million years later BECAUSE another fossil was found in a Devonian rock layer(that you cannot PROVE) was dated at 365 million years old?

Pretty WEAK presentation; can't BACK UP your Steven Jay Gould stuff that YOU POSTED before you asked about coral tide!

I am GIVING you recent history, man - this should be EASY for you - 5-11 million years ago, Broca's Convolusion manifested itself as a beneficial mutation and humans, or, humans in transition(like Nebraska man - 6 million years old) started to SPEAK and make language, and portray thoughts, and pass on accumulated information to succeeding generations through story-telling?

Got something - or - more Hovind bashing and distractions of OTHER stuff that are your FAVORITES ... seems to me BOTH THEORIES have stuff for the other side ... and your faith in your fairy tale is BIGGER than my faith in my fairy tale because I have a CONSCIENCE that tells me I was created.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 08:48:09 PM
I could post information on the evolution of language. It would be a waste of time, as you'd hear none of it.

Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

To continue spending energy on giving you evidences, only to have you refuse to answer them in light of creationism is frustrating and a waste of time. I'm no longer willing to try the same thing over and over again expecting different results.


If it makes you feel good, believe you've won. Believe your god has won. Believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and evolution is a lie of Satan. Pat yourself on the back and believe you've fought the good fight.

Anyways... The horse is dead. RIP.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on July 31, 2012, 09:30:06 PM
I could post information on the evolution of language. It would be a waste of time, as you'd hear none of it.

Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

To continue spending energy on giving you evidences, only to have you refuse to answer them in light of creationism is frustrating and a waste of time. I'm no longer willing to try the same thing over and over again expecting different results.


If it makes you feel good, believe you've won. Believe your god has won. Believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and evolution is a lie of Satan. Pat yourself on the back and believe you've fought the good fight.

Anyways... The horse is dead. RIP.
LOL! Two posts ago, you absolutely stopped beating the horse, thus giving Less the last word. Can't stop beating it, can you?
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: MonroeMonkey on July 31, 2012, 10:06:23 PM
LOL! Two posts ago, you absolutely stopped beating the horse, thus giving Less the last word. Can't stop beating it, can you?

That was my way of saying, "I'm done beating you. Rest in peace."  :P
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on July 31, 2012, 10:24:07 PM
Carry on; I'll keep score.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Tiny on July 31, 2012, 10:59:07 PM
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given. The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp (The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970) pp. 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4. Ronald W. Clark (pp. 413-414) gives a detailed account of the origin of Einstein's statement.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Forsythia on August 01, 2012, 09:08:14 AM
Ahhh good ole Lew Rockwell.  Isn't he part of the failed Austrian economics club?  Listen, the tax case against Hovind was clear cut.  He deliberately avoided taxes and filing the right building permits.  It was open and shut, and in a conservative town he got convicted easily.  I was in Pensacola for 8 months.  I have seen the best and worst that town can offer.  If a guy like Hovind can get convicted in a town with the most Christian Colleges per capita then he was no doubt guilty of all charges.
Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: Reason on August 22, 2012, 04:31:16 PM
Interesting topic.  :)


For those saying there's no real geological column, I wanted to share this, which proves there is. There are places where they drill deeply into the earth and find all the past geological columns.


The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm ...................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm..........................5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm....................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm.............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm...........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm.............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm...................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm...........9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm..................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm.........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm.....................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm.....................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm..............................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp...................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.............................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite...............13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm........................14445 feet
Precambrian.........................................14945 feet


Those who say there's no geological column are wrong.

You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:

The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

Title: Re: Creationism Vs. Evolution - New Poll
Post by: sammy on August 22, 2012, 04:37:58 PM
Well, Xerxes/ MonroeMonkey/Reason, welcome back! Not often we get one poster with three names in only one topic! Don't worry; no one will notice.